AIL Petitioners

CHECKMATE 2015, ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW, MOHALI
TC-08
IN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Special Leave Petition No. ______________ of 2015
PETITION FILED SEEKING SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL

UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950
MANU SHARMA.PETITIONER NO.1
VERSUS
U.T. OF CHANDIGARH..RESPONDENT NO.1

Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 2015
[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 25 of 2015]
VAIBHAV SHARMA...PETITIONER NO.2

VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB.RESPONDENT NO.2

Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2015
MANU SHARMAPETITIONER NO.3

VERSUS
UNION OF INDIARESPONDENT NO.3

W.P. (C). No. 16 of 2015
Most Respectfully Submitted before the Honble Chief Justice of India

and other Judges of the Supreme Court of India
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS DRAWN AND FILED BY

THE COUNSELS OF THE PETITIONERS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ...........I
II.
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .......XIV
III.
STATEMENT OF FACTS .....XV
IV.
QUESTIONS OF LAW .XXI
V.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS XXII
VI.
1.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
THAT THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION AGAINST THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL BY
THE
HONBLE
HIGH
COURT
AGAINST
PETITIONER
NO.1
IS
MAINTAINABLE...............1
1.1
THAT EXCEPTIONAL AND SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST FOR THE APPLICATION

OF ARTICLE 136...1
1.1.1
1.2
THAT
THAT THERE EXISTS A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ......................... 1

THERE
HAS
BEEN
AN
EXHAUSTION
OF
ALTERNATE
REMEDIES.............................................................................................................2
1.3 THAT SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE HAS NOT BEEN DONE BY THE HIGH COURT .................. 3
1.3.1
THAT THE F.I.R. MUST BE QUASHED WHEN IT IS FRIVOLOUS, OPPRESSIVE

OR VEXATIOUS ........................................................................................ 3
1.3.2 THAT
THE INHERENT POWERS OF THE
HIGH COURT
ARE PLENARY AND
MUST MANDATORILY BE EXERCISED IN ABSENCE OF A PRIMA FACIE

CASE.4
1.4
1.3.3
THAT THERE IS NO MENS REA PRESENT .5
1.3.4
THAT THERE IS NO ACTUS REUS PRESENT .5
1.3.5
THAT THERE IS NO INVOLVEMENT OF TWO PERSONS6
THAT THERE IS AUTONOMY IN THE FUNCTIONING OF STARGAZER ...6

1.4.1
AI COLLECTS PREDEFINED INFORMATION ................................................6
1.4.2
AI
CHOOSES ITS COURSE OF ACTION ON THE BASIS OF THE NATURE OF
INFORMATION ..........................................................................................7
1.4.3
THAT
THE INFORMATION COLLECTED SOLELY DETERMINES ACTIONS OF
AI........8

2.
THAT
HIGH
THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE
COURT
AGAINST
PETITIONER
HONBLE
NO.2
IS
MAINTAINABLE...........................................................9
2.1
THAT
HIGH COURT
MUST MANDATORILY BE
EXERCISED IN ABSENCE OF A PRIMA FACIE CASE 9
2.1.1
3.
THAT PETITIONER NO. 2
LACKS THE REQUISITE MENS REA AND ACTUS
REUS
.................................................................................................................10
2.1.2
THAT THE CODE FUNCTIONED AUTONOMOUSLY ....................................12
THAT THE ORDINANCE PROMULGATED BY THE PRESIDENT IS NOT LEGALLY

TENABLE ...14
3.1.
THAT THE INSTANT WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE .14

3.1.1
THAT PRESIDENTIAL SATISFACTION IS SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW....14
3.1.2
THAT AN ORDINANCE VIOLATING FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS IS SUBJECT TO

JUDICIAL REVIEW ..17
3.2
THAT THE ORDINANCE IS ULTRA VIRES ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

INDIA, 1950 ...18
3.3
THAT THE ORDINANCE IS ULTRA VIRES ARTICLE 19(1)(G) OF THE CONSTITUTION

OF INDIA, 1950 ..19
3.3.1
THAT THE ORDINANCE PLACES AN UNQUALIFIED EMBARGO ON

AI..19
3.3.2
THAT A DRASTIC RESTRICTION HAS BEEN IMPOSED WHERE A LESS

SEVERE RESTRICTION WOULD SUFFICE...20
VI.
PRAYER 21
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
S. No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
ABBREVIATION
$
%
&
@
AI
AIR
All
Anr.
Art.
Assn.
Bom
C.C.E.
Cal
Ch
Co.
Col.
Constitution
Corp.
Cr.P.C.
CrLJ
D.P.P.
Del
Dr.
Ed.
F.I.R.
Guj
HC
Honble
i.e.
IAMAI
ILR
IPC
J.
Kar
Ker
Ltd.
M/s
Mad
Mfg.
MP
NCT
NDPS Act
DEFINITION
Dollar
Percent
And
Alias
Artificial Intelligence
All India Reporter
Allahabad
Anothers
Article
Association
Bombay
Collector Of Central Excise
Calcutta
Chapter
Company
Colonel
The Constitution of India, 1950
Corporation
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Criminal Law Journal
Director of Public Prosecutions
Delhi
Doctor
Edition
First Information Report
Gujarat
The High Court
Honourable
That is
Internet and Mobile Association of India
Indian Law Reporter
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Justice
Karnataka
Kerala
Limited
Messers
Madras
Manufacturing
Madhya Pradesh
National Capital Territory
The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985
I

43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
No.
Ori
Ors.
P&H
p.
para
Pb.
Pvt.
Raj
RCR
Re
Rep.
S.
S.L.P.
SC
SCC
SCR
Ss.
Supp.
UOI
v.
Vol.
W.P.
Number
Orissa
Others
Punjab and Haryana
Page
Paragraph
Publication
Private
Rajasthan
Recent Civil Reporter
Reference
Represented
Section
Special Leave Petition
The Supreme Court of India
Supreme Court Cases
Supreme Court Reporter
Sections
Supplementary
The Union of India
Versus
Volume
Writ Petition
CASE LAWS
INDIAN CASES
S. NO.
CASE
CITATION
PAGE
FOOTNOTE
NO.
NO.
1.
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras
AIR 1950 SC 27
17
125
2.
A.K. Roy v. Union of India
AIR 1982 SC 710
15
92, 96
3.
Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur v. (1976) 2 SCC 521
17
126
15
94
59
15
93
40
Shivakant Shukla and Ors.

4.
Ajay Hasia & Ors. v. Khalid Mujib AIR 1981 SC 487

Sehravardi & Ors.
5.
Alok Kumar Mitra Mustagi v. State of 2002 (4) Crimes

West Bangal
337
(340,341)
(Cal)
6.
Ameer-un-Nissa
Begum
v.
Mahboob AIR 1955 SC 352
Begum and Ors.

7.
Amrita Lal Hazra and Ors. v. Emperor
(1915)
ILR
42
II

Cal 957
8.
9.
Anilchandra Pitambardas Sagar v. Rajesh 1991 CrLJ 487
26
26
10
65
10
65
SC
15
93
1986 (3) Crimes
28
14
15
93
15
93
27
Harjivandas Jhaveri
(Bom)
Anurag Chopra v. State
1989 CrLJ 2227

(Del.)
10.
Assistant Commercial Taxes v. Agarwal 2006 (146) STC

Steel Industries
11.
12.
41
Assistant Commercial Taxes v. Kanoi Dal 2006 (146) STC

Mill
426
B.N. Tewari v. Union of India & Ors.
AIR
1965
1430
13.
B.R. Bajaj v. Union of India
473 (P and H)
14.
Balakrishna v. Ramaswami
(1965) AIR 195

(SC)
15.
Behram Khurshid Pesikaka v. State of AIR 1955 SC 123

Bombay
16.
Bengal
Chemical
and
Pharmaceutical AIR 1959 SC 633
Works Ltd., Calcutta v. Their Workmen

17.
Bhagat Ram Sharma v. Union of India & AIR 1988 SC 740

Ors.
18.
Bharat Singh v. State of Rajasthan
1991 (2) Crimes

526 (Raj)
19.
Bidhannagar (Salt Lake) Welfare Assn. v. AIR
2007
SC
15
94
2006
SC
2006
SC
22
RD-SC
15
100
Central Bureau of Investigation v. A. (2009) 6 SCC 351
57
Central Valuation Board & Ors.

20.
2276
Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. AIR

v. Bombay Environmental Action Group & 1489
Ors.
21.
Bureau of Investigation v. Shri Ravi AIR

Shankar Srivastava, IAS
22.
Cellular Operators Association v. Union of [2002]

India & Ors.
23.
2872
552
Ravishankar Prasad and Ors.

III

24.
SC
36
Commissioner, [1968] 3 SCR 655
15
91
(SCR)
20
143
Supp.
15
93
SC
10
Council of Civil Service Union v. Minister [1984] 3 All E.R.
15
91
14, 15
88, 104
20
37
57
56
15
99
26
15, 18
94, 131
18
133
Chandrakant Murgyappa Umrani v. State AIR

of Madhya Pradesh
25.
Chief
Settlement
1999
1557
Rehabilitation Department, Punjab and 660-661

Ors. v. Om Parkash & Ors.
26.
27.
Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya 1950

Pradesh
759,763
Col. A.S. Sangwan v. Union of India
[1980]
SCC 559
28.
Collector Of Central Excise v. Standard AIR

Motor Products
29.
1989
1298
for the Civil Service
935
30.
D. C. Wadhwa (Dr.) v. State of Bihar
AIR 1987 SC 579
31.
Delhi Judicial Service Assn. v. State of (1991) 4 SCC 406

Gujarat
32.
Devender Pal Singh v. State (NCT of AIR 2002 SC 166

Delhi)
33.
Dhankeshwari Cotton Mills v. C.I.T.
AIR 1955 SC 65
34.
Dinesh Dutt Joshi v. State of Rajasthan and (2001) 8 SCC 570

Anr.
35.
District Collector, Dharmapuri v. T. V. 2014

Kasturi
OnLine
SCC
MAD
429
36.
Dr. A.K. Shaihar and Ors. v. Vice (1961) 3 SCR 386

Chancellor, Benares Hindu University
37.
Dr. Anand R. Nerkar v. Rahimbi Shaikh 1991 CrLJ 557

Madar
38.
(Bom)
Durga Shanker Mehta v. Thakur Ragunath AIR 1954 SC 520

Singh
39.
E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu & AIR 1974 SC 555

Anr.
40.
Girish v. State Of Karnataka
ILR 1994 KAR

439, 1994
IV

41.
Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
(1975)
SCR
18
128
SC
15
94
Gurudevdatta VKSSS Maryadit and Ors. v. AIR 2001 SC 980
15
101
14
90
15
93
10
65
946, 955-56
42.
Grand
Kakatiya
Sheraton
Hotel
and AIR
2009
Towers Employees & Workers Union v. 2337

Srinivasa Resorts Limited & Ors.
43.
State of Maharashtra and Ors.

44.
Gyanendra Kumar and Anr. v. Union of 1996 Indlaw DEL

India and Ors.
45.
308
Harbilas Rai Bansal v. State of Punjab & AIR 1996 SC 857

Anr.
46.
Hari Singh Gond v. State Of M.P
AIR 2009 SC 31
47.
Haryana State Industrial Corpn. v. Cork (2007) 8 SCC 359

Mfg. Co.
(SC)
48.
Hasib v. State of Bihar
(1972) 4 SCC 773
28
49.
Hem Raj v. State of Ajmer
AIR 1965 SC 462
13
50.
Hiralal Poddar v. State of Assam
1991 (1) Crimes
25
C.T.O., AIR 1975 SC 155
15
93
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) AIR 1986 SC 515
15
93
15
97
15
9, 91
14, 18
91, 130
56
65 (Gau)
51.
India
Tobacco
Co.
Ltd.
v.
Bhavanipore & Ors.

52.
Private Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India &

Ors.
53.
Indian Nut Products v. Union of India
(1994)
SCC
269, 275
54.
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. State of 1986 4 SCC 146

Bihar and Ors.
55.
Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain
AIR
1975
SC
2299
56.
Ishtiyak Ahmad Makrani v. State of Uttar 2010

Pradesh and Ors.
57.
OnLine All 1713
Jamshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of AIR

Trustees, Port of Mumbai
SCC
2004
SC
1815

58.
Janakiraman v. J. Parimala Veni
1988 (2) Crimes
25
61
14
91
19
137
529 (Mad)
59.
Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary and Ors.
(1992), 4 SCC
305
60.
Judicial Accountability v. Union of India (1991) 4 SCC 699

and Ors.
61.
Jyoti Pershad v. The Administrator for the 1962 SCR (2) 125
Union Territory of Delhi
1993
SC
31
1985
Ker
15
103
Kerala
148
64.
K. Nagaraj v. State of Andra Pradesh
(1985) 1 SCC 524
17
124
65.
Kali Charan Gupta v. Ashok Kumar Jain
1984 (1) Crimes
25
58
10
65
15
93
4, 18
25, 127
27
15
93
SC
17
123
Bihar
2288
Krishna Rani v. State of Punjab
1991 (2) Crimes
27
62.
Jyoti Prashad v. State of Haryana
AIR
1167
63.
K. Krishnankutty and Ors. v. State of AIR
221 (All)
66.
Kamadev Naik v. State of Orissa
1994 (3) Crimes

248 (248)
67.
Kartar Singh v. State Of Punjab
68.
Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of [1980]

Jammu and Kashmir
69.
SCR
1973
SC
1461
Kodati Ramana @ Venkatarama v. Station 1991 (3) Crimes

House Officer
71.
1338
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala and AIR

Anr.
70.
(1994) 3 SCC 569
839 (AP)
Koteswar Vittal Kamath v. K. Rangappa AIR 1969 SC 504

Baliga & Co.
72.
73.
Krishna Kumar Singh and Anr. v. State of AIR
1998
329 (P and H)
74.
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India
(1997) 3 SCC 261
15
91
75.
Lakha Singh v. State of Punjab
1991 (3) Crimes
27
376 (P and H)
VI

76.
M/s Dwarkadas Marlaria and Sons v. (1989) 3 SCC 293
18
133
15
94
60
15
91
SC
15
93
Pradesh & Ors.
1019
81.
Makhan Singh v. State of Punjab
[1964] 4 SCR 797
17
123
82.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
AIR 1978 SC 597
1, 18
9, 131
83.
Maneklal Chhotalal & Ors. v. M.G. 1967 (3) SCR 65
15, 20
95, 143
SC
59
Biological E. Ltd.
1869
Misri Lal v. State of Rajasthan
1991 (2) Crimes
28
Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay

77.
M/s. Sharma Transport Rep. by D.P. AIR 2002 SC 322

Sharma v. Government of A.P. & Ors.
78.
Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and Ors. v. (1998) 1 SCC18

Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Ors.
79.
Mahabir Auto Stores & Ors. v. Indian Oil (1990) 3 SCC 752
Corporation & Ors.
80.
Mahendra Lal Jaini v. State of Uttar AIR
1963
Makwana & Ors.

84.
85.
Medchl Chemicals and Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v. AIR
2000
421 (Raj)
86.
Mohd Khalid v. State of West Bengal
(2002) 7 SCC 334
37
87.
Mohd. Faruk v. State of Madhya Pradesh
1970 AIR 93
20
143
88.
Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad and 1986 SCR (2) 700
20
141
20
143
27
17
123
Ors. v. Jan Mohammed Usmanbhai and

Anr.
89.
Narendra Kumar and Ors. v. Union of 1960 AIR 430

India
90.
Om Prakash v. State of Bihar
1992 (1) Crimes

483 (Pat)
91.
P. Venkateseshamma v. State of Andhra AIR 1976 AP 1

Pradesh
92.
Parichhat v. State of Madhya Pradesh
AIR 1972 SC 535
36
93.
Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana
(2003)11
SCC
12
2014 AD (S.C.)
13
241 (SC)
94.
Phool Chandra and Anr. v. State of U.P.
VII

560
95.
96.
Pramod v. Garvare Plastics and Polyester 1987 (1) Crimes

Ltd.
603 (Bom)
Pranaab Kumar Mitra v. Dilip Paul
1992 (1) Crimes
26
27
11
79
622 (Cal)
97.
Pukhrambham
Surchandsingh
Ibohan 2008
Singh v. State of Maharashtra
SCC
OnLine
Bom
1266
98.
R.Balakrishna Pillai v. State Of Kerala
(2003) 9 SCC 700
10
65
99.
R.C. Cooper v. Union of India
AIR 1970 SC 564
14, 15
87, 104
15
93
14, 17
89, 122
100. R.D. Shetty v. Airport Authority
AIR
1979
SC
1628
101. R.K. Garg and Ors. v. Union of India and (1981) 4 SCC 675
Ors.
102. R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab
AIR 1960 SC 866
57
103. Ram Eqbal Singh v. State of Bihar
1989 (3) Crimes
25
17
126
All.
24
106. Ram Nath Marethia Reg Man, United India 2002 (4) Crimes
59
15
100
26
RD-SC
15
100
1991 (2) Crimes
28
33 (Pat)
104. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar and [1966] 1 SCR 709
Ors.
105. Ram Narain v. Mool Chand and Ors.
AIR
1960
296
Insuarance Co. Ltd. v. Shashin H. Bhavsar
502 (508) (Guj)
107. Ramesh Chand Sharma and Anr. v. 2005 Indlaw DEL

Commissioner of Police and Ors.
108. Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab
367
1991 (1) Crimes
326 P and H
109. Reliance Airport Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. [2006]

Airport Authority of India & Ors.
110. Rita Devi v. State of Bihar
758
368 (Pat-DB)
111. RK Kapur v. State of Punjab
AIR 1960 SC 866
18
112. Rupal Deo Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill
AIR 1996 SC 309
59
VIII

113. S. Jagadeesan v. The State
April,
2003
10
65
SC
29
115. Salimkhan Shabbirkhan Pathan v State of 2012 Indlaw GUJ
11
80
59
1961 3 SCR 120
118. Satya Pal Singh and Ors. v. State of Uttar 2000 Cri LJ 569
18
127
59
11
80
27
10
65
16
17
126
22
15
98
3, 4,9
23, 27, 29,
(Unreported)
114. S.N. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar
AIR
2001
2960
Gujarat
1090
116. Sanapareddy Maheedhar Seshagiri v. State 2008 CrLJ 1375

of Andhra Pradesh
117. Sanwant Singh v. State of Rajasthan
(1384,1385) (SC)
Pradesh and Ors.

119. Shankar Lal v. State
2003 (4) Crimes

410 (Raj)
120. Shyam Babu Vishwakarma @ RamBabu 2012

alias Shyam Babu v. State of Uttar Pradesh
121. Shyam Rani v. State of Maharashtra
(1)
RCR
(Criminal) 750
1981 (2) Crimes
299 (Bom)
122. Siddhapal Kamala Yadav v. State Of

Maharashtra
(2009) 1 SCC
124
123. Sir Chunilal v. Mehta And Sons Ltd. v. 1962 AIR 1314
The Century Spinning
124. Sree Mohan Chowdhury v. the Chief [1964] 3 SCR 442
Commissioner, Union Territory of Tripura
125. State of Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga AIR
Swamy
126. State of Bihar v. Union of India and Anr.
SC
3967
1970 2 SCR 522
127. State Of Haryana And Ors v. Ch. Bhajan AIR

Lal and Ors.
2004
1992
SC
2042
128. State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa and (2002) 3 SCC 89
57
9
62
15
93
Anr.
129. State of Kerala v. Peoples Union for Civil (2009) 8 SCC 46
Liberties, Kerala State Unit & Ors.
IX

130. State of M.P. v. Bharat Singh
AIR
1967
SC
15
91
AIR 1952 SC 196
19
138
SC
25
133. State of Maharasthra v. Ishwar Piraji 1996 CrLJ 1127
59
10
67
18
128
15
98
AIR 1996 SC 218
15
93
138. State Of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram @ Vishnu (2012) 1 SCC 602
10
65
SC
15
94
141. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Hirendra (2011) 5 SCC 305
15
93
AIR 1957 Punj 74
10
64
143. Subrata Chattoraj and Anr. v. Union of (2014) 8 SCC 796
18
127
(1)
37
SC
36
146. T. Venkata Reddy v. State of Andhra (1985) 3 SCC 198
14
89
1170
131. State of Madras v. V.G. Row
132. State of Maharashtra v. Arun Gulab Gawali AIR
2010
3762
Kalpatri
(SC)
134. State of Maharasthra v. Mayer Hans AIR 1965 SC 722

George
135. State of Nagaland v. Ratan Singh
(1966)
SCR
830, 851, 852

136. State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Union of 1977 AIR 1361
India
137. State of Rajasthan v. Mangilal Pindwal
Dutta
139. State of Rajasthan v. Sohan Lal
2004 5 SCC 57
140. State of Tamil.Nadu & Ors. v. K. Shyam AIR

Sunder & Ors.
2011
3470
Pal Singh & Ors.

142. State v. B.D. Meattle
India and Ors.

144. Surendra Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar
1995
Supp
SCC 80
145. Suresh v. State of Uttar Pradesh
AIR
2001
1344
Pradesh
147. T.N. Lakshmaiah v. State Of Karnataka
(2002) 1 SCC 219
10
65
148. Tapan Kumar Ray v. Sunil Kumar Pradhan
1991 (2) Crimes
27
630 (Ori)
X

149. TGL Groundnut Corpn. v. Agricultural 1985 (1) Crimes
25
SC
19
151. The State of Bombay v. Rusy Mistry and AIR 1960 SC 391
Market Committee
150. The
State
908 (AP)
Of
Andhra
Pradesh
Vangaveeti Nagaiah
v. AIR
2009
2646
Anr.
152. Union of India and Anr. v. Ashok Kumar 2014(3)
Aggarwal
CHN
(SC) 128
153. Union of India v. J.S. Khanna
1972 CrLJ 849
26
154. Vinod Doshi v. Shiv Kumar Jain
1987 (2) Crimes
26
15
93
15
93
PAGE
NO.
18
FOOTNOTE
NO.
134
18
134
15
91
18
134
55
18
134
18
134
13
85
35
18
134
30
661 (P and H)
155. West U.P. Sugar Mills Assn. v. State of AIR 2002 SC 948
U.P.
156. Zile Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.
(2004) 8 SCC 1
INTERNATIONAL CASES
S. NO.
1.
CASE
Boushea v. United States
CITATION
173 F.2d 131, 134
(8th Cir. 1949)
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Commonwealth v. Hill
11 Mass. 136
(1814)
Eshugbayi Eleka v. Officer Administering [1931] AC 662
the Government of Nigeria
670
38 So. 182, 183
Johnson v. State
(Ala. 1904)
M/s. Lanco Ferro Ltd. v. N. Guravaiah CMA NO.4750 of
And Anr
2003
Michaels Case
(1840) 2 Mood.
120, 169 E.R. 48
People v. Monks
24 P.2d 508, 511
(Cal. Dist. Ct.
App. 1933)
Scott v. Com. Ky.
353, 197 S.W. 2d
774 (1946)
Thomas Bangert v London South Bank [2010]
EWHC
University
2315 (QB)
United States v. Bryan
483 F.2d 88, 92
(3d Cir. 1973)
Woolmington v. D.P.P.
[1935] AC 462
XI

BOOKS REFERRED
S.No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
NAME
A. Beaver Moral Machines and the Threat of Ethical Nihilism in P. Lin, K. Abney
and G. A. Bekey (eds.) Robot Ethics: The Ethical and Social Implications of Robotics,
MIT Press: 2012.
A. M. Turing (1950), Computing Machinery and Intelligence
Avtar Singh, Principles of the Law of Evidence, 7th ed. Allahabad: Central Law
Publications (2007)
Batuk Lal, Law of Evidence, 5th ed. New Delhi: Orient Publishing Company (2006)
Bryan A. Garner, Blacks Law Dictionary 8th edition
Cf. J. H.Moor, The Nature, Importance, and Difficulty of Machines Ethics IEEE
Intelligent Systems, 31:4, 2006
Cf. S. Matteo, D. Marino and G.Tamburrini Learning Robots Interacting with Humans:
From Epistemic Risk to Responsibility AI and Society, 2008
Cf.Lin, Bekey and Abney, Autonomous Military Robotics: Risk, Ethics, Design
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, D.D. Basu Vol. 3 (4th ed. 2010)
D.D. Basu, Shorter Constitution of India Vol. 2 (14th ed. 2010)
Dr. Hari Singh Gour, Penal Law of India, 11th ed. Allahabad: Law Publishers (India)
Pvt. Ltd. (2011)
E.S. Crown, Essay on the Judicial Review in Encyclopedia of Social Sciences, Vol.
VII
Eagle, Nathan and Horvitz, Eric, Artificial Intelligence for Development, Technical
Report SS-10-01; Thrun, Sebastian, Self-Driving Cars-an AI-Robotics Challenge.
Edwina L. Rissland, Artificial Intelligence and Law: Stepping Stones to a Model of
Legal Reasoning, 99 Yale L.J. 1957, 19611964 (1990); Alan Tyree, Expert Systems in
Law 711 (1989)
Gallimore, J.J., Prabhala, S.: Creating Collaborative Agents with Personality for
Supervisory Control of Multiple UCAVs. In: Human Factors and Medicine Panel
Symposium on Human Factors of Uninhabited Military Vehicles as Force Multipliers,
Biarritz, France (2006)
Glanville Williams, Text Book Of Criminal Law, (2nd Edition, Universal Law
Publishing, 1999)
Grosz, Barbara and Davis, Randall, A Report to ARPA on Twenty-First Century
Intelligent Systems, Introduction
H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India (4th edn. Vol 2 2010)
Halsburys Laws of India (Vol. 35 2007)
Harriss Criminal Law, Ian Mclean and Peter Morrish (eds), 22nd edn, Sweet and
Maxwell, 1973.
Haupt, Sue E., Pasini, A., Artificial Intelligence Methods in the Environmental
Science, Springer Netherlands (2009)
IAMAI Annual Report 2012-2013
J.B.L. Hansaria, Writ Jurisdiction (3rd ed. 2005)
K. D. Gaur, Textbook on the Indian Penal Code, 4th ed. New Delhi: Universal Law
Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd. (2013)
L. Floridi The Philosophy of Information, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011
Lamber, K.A., Fundamentals of Python, Why Python?
Lee, K.C., Kim, H.S.: A Fuzzy Cognitive Map-Based Bi-Directional Inference
Mechanism: An Application to Stock Investment Analysis, Intl. Sys. in Acct. Fin. and
Mang, (1997)
XII

28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
McCallum, Andrew et al, A Machine Learning Approach to Building Domain-Specific

Search Engines.
N. P. Padhy, Artificial Intelligence and Intelligent Systems 4 (2009)
N.S. Bindra, Interpretation of Statute 10th edition
Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition
P. Hemalatha Devi, Administrative Discretion and Judicial Review (1st ed. 1994)
P.S. Varma, Murder Trial, 1st ed. Allahabad: Premier Publishing Co. (2008)
Prabhala, S. and Ganapathy, S. Emerging Artificial Intelligence Application:
Transforming Television into Smart Television Semantic Methods for Knowledge
Management and Communication Studies in Computational Intelligence, Volume 381,
2011.
R.V. Kelkar, Criminal Procedure, 5th ed. Lucknow: Eastern Book Company (2012)
Ramanatha Aiyar , The Law Lexicon (Reprint ed. 1987)
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, Indian Penal Code-Volume 2, 32nd ed. Nagpur: LexisNexis
Butterworths Wadhwa (2011)
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 19th ed. Nagpur: LexisNexis
Butterworths Wadhwa (2011)
Rathod, S.R., An Autonomous Driverless Car: An Idea to Overcome the Urban Road
Challenges, Journal of Information Engineering and Applications, Vol.3, No.13, 2013
Robert M. Glorioso and Fernando C. Colon Osorio, Engineering Intelligent Systems:
Concepts and Applications (1980)
Ronald C. Arkin, Intelligent Robotics and Autonomous Agents, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology Press 2004
Russell, Stuart J.; Norvig, Peter, The State of the Art, Artificial Intelligence: A
Modern Approach
S.C. Sarkar, Commentary on the Law of Evidence-Vol. 1st , 2nd and 3rd ed. Allahabad:
Dwivedi Law Agency (2011)
Sarkar, Sarkars Commentary on the Code of Civil Procedure 2nd edition.
Shamshul Huda, The Principles of Law of Crime in India, Tagore Law Lectures,
1902, Eastern Book Co., Lucknow, Reprint 1993.
Soares De Almeida, J.C., Application of Artificial Intelligence Techniques in Modeling
and Control of a Nuclear Power Plant Pressurizer System.
Srinivasan, D., Xin, J., Chue, R.L.: Evaluation of Adaptive Neural Network Models for
Freeway Incident Detection. IEEE Tran. on Intl. Trans. Sys. (2004)
Terry Winograd, Thinking Machines: Can There Be? Are We?, in the foundations of
artificial intelligence, (Derek Pertridge and Yorick Wilks eds., 1990, 2006)
The Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol. 8, Part V, Chapter III.
The Digest 17 (1st ed., Vol 14 (2), London Butterworths and Co. Ltd. 1993)
W. Wallach, and C. Allen, Moral Machines: Teaching Robots Right from Wrong,
Oxford University Press, 2009
Weiss J.C. et al, Machine Learning for Personalized Medicine: Predicting Primary
Myocardial Infarction from Electronic Health Records, Tatara, E., Cinar, A.:
Interpreting ECG Data by Integrating Statistical and Artificial Intelligence Tools,
IEEE Mag. on Eng. Med. and Biol. 21(1), (2002).
Zelle, J., Python Programming: An Introduction to Computer Science, Computers and
Programs.
XIII
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA EXERCISES
JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND ADJUDICATE OVER THE
MATTER UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION
OF INDIA, 1950.
THE
PROVISION
APPROACHED
UNDER
WHICH
THE
PETITIONER
HAS
THIS HONBLE COURT AND TO WHICH THE
PETITIONER HUMBLY SUBMITS IS READ HEREINUNDER:
Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950 states that

(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme
Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from
any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any
cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the
territory of India
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment,
determination, sentence or order passed or made by any court or
tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed
Forces.
XIV
STATEMENT OF FACTS
I.
RIHA KAUSHALS BACKGROUND
Riha Kaushal, a twenty eight year old girl, lost her mother at a very young age. Her
father, Nitin Kaushal, had brought her up as a child who had never known no for an
answer. Kaushal was hugely successful in the world of high-end retail. He was an avid
user of social media using which he finalized Rihas marriage with one Sehajbir
Singh.
However, on December 31st 2014 Riha lost her father. The death came as a huge
blow to her due to which she refused to marry Sehajbir.
II.
INTERFACE WITH CHANDANDEEP JUNEJA
At the funeral, she was approached by her old friend, Chandandeep Juneja, who urged
her to try an experimental, but world-renowned invitation only program called
Stargazer that had greatly helped numerous people deal with the loss of a parent.
Her friend Ish, from college helped her cope with the loss. While he was always
romantically inclined towards her, she did not feel the same way. She would, however,
ever so often hint of a relationship. This was the reason Ish had come back to her side
in her hour of need and she was grateful for it.
III.
RIHA USES THE STARGAZER PROGRAM
On the night of 14th January 2015, Riha for the first time, logged into her email . One
email caught her attention, it was from Nitin Kaushal, and it simply said Yes Rihu,
its me. Chandan helped me get in touch with you. Click here so we can talk. She was
stunned. Riha called Chandan, who explained to her that he had gone ahead and
signed her up for the Stargazer program. It was the first real breakthrough in artificial
intelligence. The way it worked was that the program collected all the information
about the person that it could from the internet, social media, blogs etc. and identified
a pattern and a manner in which that person wrote, his likes, tastes and so on. It then
basically tried to replicate the person using AI, so you could chat with that person
XV

about virtually any subject. The experience would be as if the said person was away,
and you were chatting via Instant Messages.
The responses by the AI version of Nitin Kaushal to anything she asked sounded just
like what her father would have said. She was aware that this wasnt real, and that
Nitin was not the one talking to her, but she felt extremely well and happy.
Seeing her coping so well, Ish bought a ring on February 1st and asked Riha to marry
him. However, bitter memories of her broken relationship with Sehajbir came rushing
back to her, and with that came the realisation that her father had indeed died and that
she had been living in a bubble. She left without saying a word, and Ish was incensed
at this rejection which encouraged him to win her over.
IV.
INTERFACE WITH MANU SHARMA
Riha stopped using Stargazer and became dismal again. Her case was actively being
monitored at the Stargazer HQs in Los Angeles. Worried by the sudden termination of
the program, the M.D of Stargazer, especially informed the creator of Stargazer, Manu
Sharma about this development. Sharma immediately recognised Riha from his days
in college. Both of them had liked each other, but they had never really pursued it on
account of Ishs presence.
Manu Sharma personally took charge of her case and directed all Stargazer employees
that he would conduct the project himself and that it stood classified for everyone else
at the company. Riha then received an email that asked her to upload all the video and
audio clips that she had of her father. The email informed her that this project was
purely experimental and expensive. Despite this, she agreed because she missed him
terribly.
Two days later, she received a call from an international number Hello Baccha, its
me! The person on the other side sounded just like her father, and was speaking in
exactly the same manner as he did. Riha knew he wasnt real, but she started spending
a lot of time on the phone everyday.
Seeing this, Ish sensed another opportunity to approach her. He started sending
flowers to her workplace, her house, started calling her continuously, buying her
unwanted gifts. Riha mentioned all of this to her father, and asked him for ways to
XVI

get rid of this relationship. He advised her to have a frank conversation with him, but
that had no effect, instead Ishs overtures were only growing. Frustrated she told Nitin
that she couldnt take it anymore and was afraid shell end up doing something to
herself. The AI powered call was immediately disconnected. Ten minutes later Nitin
told her that hed thought of something. He asked Riha to call Ish to her home, and
pretend that he was going to outrage her modesty, bruise herself a little, hit him with
something and run away from the house and call the police. That way, Ish would be
put in jail and shed have her life back once and for all.
Since to her mind, it was her father telling her to do this she went ahead with the plan.
On the evening of the 14th of February at about 7 pm she acted on the plan by
screaming for her safety and hittting Ish with a vase on the head and ran from the
house shouting Save me! Save me!. Then she called the police from her mobile
phone. The police arrived at the scene within 10 minutes and found Ish unconscious
inside Rihas home. She narrated to the police how he was harassing her, and how he
had come to her house uninvited that evening as well. She further stated that after
consuming wine Ish had become larkish after which he had attempted to assault her.
She further said that she had, with great difficulty, escaped from his clutches and
called the police.
Ish was found to be dead. The police then sent the body for a postmortem
examination. Meanwhile, the police sought to interview Rihas friends and colleagues
and also went through her call history. While they did find a few calls from Ish, her
calls and IM logs also indicated that she was chatting with someone most of the time,
which her phone identified as Dad. However, knowing that Mr. Kaushal had passed
away a little while ago, the police became suspicious. They brought in Mr. Salil
Sabhlok, a cyber security expert who after due analysis informed the police that the
calls and IM were coming from a company based in the U.S. called Stargazer. He
explained to the police how the company was a pioneer in the field of Artificial
Intelligence and what its business was.
V.
FILING OF FIRs
On February 16th while Manu Sharma was visiting India, the police summoned him
for questioning. The next day the police decided to register FIR No. 27 at Police
XVII

Station Sector 3, Chandigarh under Sections 302, 120-B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code
1860, in which Manu Sharma was also named as an accused along with Riha Kaushal.
During the course of investigation the police interviewed the M.D. of Stargazer who
revealed that while their system was completely autonomous, it was, to a limited
extent, influenced by the inputs given by the handlers and psychological specialists to
tweak its code to better humanise it. He further stated that he knew Manu Sharma
from his college days, and he didnt believe that Manu Sharma was capable of
something as devious as using Stargazer to help eliminate Ish from the equation, so
that he could be with Riha. Although he did say that he found Manu Sharmas actions
in classifying Rihas files suspicious.
On the 17th of February Manu Sharma called a press conference in which he labeled
the actions of the police as myopic .He went on to explain to the press how the police
was missing the basic premise that Stargazer is based on Artificial Intelligence and
therefore he possibly could have no control over what that machine said to Riha, and
how she chose to interpret it. In any case, Riha had agreed to the terms and conditions
of the program that categorically stated that the users accepts all risks and
consequences for the use of the service, and that the company shall have no liability
whatsoever in any form as a result of the usage of their service. He further pointed out;
that it also wasnt a case where he had been negligent in any aspect that involved the
prevention of a crime, as all transcripts of the communication between parties are
secure and deleted at the end of each day. Therefore, he possibly couldnt be held
responsible for any actions of the AI software.
In a brief statement, the investigating officer of the case Sahil Sethi said that the police
force is a modern establishment that consults with the best minds on cases such as
these. He stated Manu Sharma isnt as clean as he claims to be. On 14th February
Ishs call records show that he had received a call from the same number that
Stargazer had been using to call Riha. Thats not all, as it turns out her ex-fianc
Sehajbir is an investor in Stargazer. Ill let it rest at that for now.
VI.
MEDIA REPORTS
Media reports carried a story about a teenage internet genius named Vaibhav Sharma
who had made an automated bot that ordered Coke from Internet sites that serviced
XVIII

his area the moment it was offered on a 5% or more discount. The code for the bot
included his payment details and delivery address, so the entire transaction was
automatic and seamless. One day that bot had accidently ordered Coke from a decoy
website setup by the police to catch drug peddlers and that had brought the police to
his door step and led to the registration of an FIR against Vaibhav. He had claimed
that he couldnt be held responsible for the crime as it had been committed by the
bot and also because he lacked the necessary intent to commit the crime.
VII.
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ORDINANCE
In view of such incidents, where serious crime were being blamed on machines that
could act for themselves - independent of manual instructions, the Central
Government got issued an ordinance dated 20.02.15 banning commercial research,
sale or dissemination in any other form of hardware or code that possessed
characteristics of Artificial Intelligence including, but not limited to programs
which are considered bots in common parlance. This was undertaken to cast down
citizens from committing crimes and then blaming them on machines that couldnt be
prosecuted and punished under the law.
VIII.
HONBLE HIGH COURT
At once, Manu Sharma approached Vaibhav with an offer of legal assistance. Both
individuals filed petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973
seeking quashing of the respective FIRs qua them. However, the Honble Punjab and
Haryana High Court vide order dated 23.02.15 was dismissed both these petitions in
limine on the ground that the police was yet to present a chargesheet, and it would not
be proper to quash the FIRs at this preliminary stage itself.
Both Manu Sharma and Vaibhav preferred Special Leave Petitions before the Honble
Supreme Court against the order of dismissal. In a separate petition, Manu Sharma
also challenged the governments move to ban all forms of AI, being violative of the
Constitution of India and other laws of the land.
XIX

IX.
HONBLE SUPREME COURT
The Honble Supreme Court issued notice in all the following cases, and listed them
for arguments together on March 20th 2015.
Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 2015, Manu Sharma v. U.T. of Chandigarh

Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2015, Vaibhav Sharma v. State of Punjab

W.P.(C). No. 16 of 2015, Manu Sharma v. Union of India
XX
QUESTIONS OF LAW
I.
WHETHER
THE
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION
DISMISSAL BY THE
HONBLE HIGH COURT
AGAINST THE ORDER OF
AGAINST
PETITIONER NO.1
IS
MAINTAINABLE?
II.
WHETHER
THE
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION
DISMISSAL BY THE
HONBLE HIGH COURT
AGAINST THE ORDER OF
AGAINST
PETITIONER NO.2
IS
MAINTAINABLE?
III.
WHETHER THE ORDINANCE PROMULGATED BY RESPONDENT NO. 3 IS

LEGALLY TENABLE?
XXI
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
I.
THAT THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION AGAINST THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL BY

THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AGAINST PETITIONER NO. 1 IS MAINTAINABLE.
The Special Leave Petition filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950
against the decision of the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the matter of
quashing of F.I.R. against Petitioner No. 1 is maintainable. The Petitioner has
exhausted all remedies available to him under S. 482 Cr.P.C. Petitioner No. 1 had no
mens rea or actus reus to commit the acts as alleged in the F.I.R. The alleged act was
carried out by an AI entity and Petitioner No. 1 cannot be held responsible for the
actions of the AI entity.
2.
THAT THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION AGAINST THE ORDER OF HONBLE

HIGH COURT AGAINST PETITIONER NO.2 IS MAINTAINABLE.
The Special Leave Petition filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950
against the decision of the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the matter of
quashing of F.I.R. against Petitioner No. 2 is maintainable. The Petitioner has
exhausted all remedies available to him under S. 482 Cr.P.C. The F.I.R. alleges
Petitioner No. 2 of offences under the NDPS Act, for which he had neither intention
nor act. The alleged act was carried out by an AI entity and the Petitioner No. 2 cannot
be held responsible for the actions of the AI autonomous bot devised by him.
3.
THAT THE ORDINANCE PROMULGATED BY
THE
PRESIDENT IS LEGALLY
TENABLE.
The sweeping prohibition of the Ordinance coupled with the unreasonably harsh
restrictions, imprecise language and absence of a due procedure which could permit
bona fide uses of AI, adversely impairs the due exercise of Right to Trade and makes
it unreasonable deeming it ultra vires Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution of India, 1950.
XXII
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. THAT THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION AGAINST THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL BY
THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AGAINST PETITIONER NO.1 IS MAINTAINABLE.
The instant S.L.P. against the order of dismissal by the Honble High Court is
maintainable. The High Court ordered dismissal of the petitions seeking the quashing
of F.I.R. The submission made by the Petitioner is fourfold. Firstly, exceptional and
special circumstances exist for the application of Art. 136. Secondly, there has been an
exhaustion of alternate remedies. Thirdly, substantial justice has not been done by the
High Court. Fourthly, there is autonomy in the actions of the software Stargazer.
1.1
THAT
EXCEPTIONAL
AND
SPECIAL
CIRCUMSTANCES
EXIST
FOR
THE
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 136
The powers of this Court under Art. 136 are exceptional and extraordinary.1 They are
of a residuary and reserve nature2 exercised in furtherance of the interests of justice.3
The jurisdiction conferred under Art. 136 on this Court is corrective and not
restrictive.4 The exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Art. 136 on this Court is purely
discretionary, conditioned by the existence of self-imposed conditions: special
circumstances5; miscarriage of justice6; violation of principles of natural justice7;
disregard of legal principles8; existence of substantial question of law9; existence of
question of general public importance.10 A duty is enjoined upon the Apex Court to
exercise its power by setting right the illegality.11 It is well-settled that illegality must
not be allowed to be perpetrated.12 It has been held in a plethora of cases13 that when
the question of law of general public importance arises, the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court can be invoked by filing an S.L.P. Therefore, the issue involves matter
1
Dhankeshwari Cotton Mills v. CIT, AIR 1955 SC 65; Union of India and Anr. v. Ashok Kumar
Aggarwal, 2014(3) CHN (SC) 128.
2
Durga Shanker Mehta v. Thakur Ragunath Singh, AIR 1954 SC 520.
3
Sanwant Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1961 3 SCR 120.
4
Haryana State Industrial Corp. v. Cork Mfg. Co., (2007) 8 SCC 359 (SC).
5
Jamshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai, AIR 2004 SC 1815.
6
State of Rajasthan v. Sohan Lal, 2004 5 SCC 57.
7
Bengal Chemical and Pharmaceutical Works Ltd., Calcutta v. Their Workmen, AIR 1959 SC 633.
8
The State of Bombay v. Rusy Mistry and Anr., AIR 1960 SC 391.
9
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Ors., 1986 4 SCC 146.
10
Collector of Central Excise v. Standard Motor Products, AIR 1989 SC 1298.
11
H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India (4th edn. Vol 2 2010). See: C.C.E. v. Standard Motor
Products, (1989) AIR 1298 (SC).
12
Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2003) 11 SCC 241 (SC). See: H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law
of India (4th edn. Vol 1 2010). See also: Halsburys Laws of India (Vol. 35 2007).
13
Hem Raj v. State of Ajmer, AIR 1965 SC 462; Phool Chandra and Anr. v. State of U.P. 2014, AD
(S.C.) 560; Sanwat Singh and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, 1961 AIR 715.
1

of general public importance14 and hence, this Petition is maintainable.
1.1.1 THAT THERE EXISTS A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW
It is submitted that in the instant case there exists a substantial question of law.15 The
Supreme Court has held that, the proper test in determining whether a question of
law raised in the case is substantial would be whether it is of general public
importance, or whether is directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties
and so whether it is an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by this
court.16 In the instant case, the High Court dismissed the Petitions to quash the
F.I.R.17 It is submitted that the High Court erred while making such an Order and
triggered the criminal law machinery against the Petitioner No. 1. Therefore, the
substantial question of law in the instant case is whether a liability be imposed on a
person for the actions of AI-entities?.
1.2
THAT THERE HAS BEEN AN EXHAUSTION OF ALTERNATE REMEDIES
It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern
the exercise of inherent jurisdiction.18 No legislative enactment dealing with procedure
can provide for all cases that may possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent
powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge
of duties imposed upon them by law. All courts possess in the absence of any express
provision, as inherent in their constitution. All such powers are necessary to do the
right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice on basis of the
principle quando lex a liquid aliquot concedit, conceditur et id sine quo res ipsa esse
non potest. Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt
is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice; the court has power to
prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of the process of the court to allow any
action that would result in injustice. In exercise of these powers, the court would be
justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation or continuance of it would
amount to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would
otherwise serve the ends of justice. When a F.I.R. is sought to be quashed, it is
permissible to look into the materials to assess what the Complainant has alleged and
14
Balakrishna v. Ramaswami, (1965) AIR 195 (SC).

Collector of Central Excise v. Standard Motor Products, AIR 1989 SC 1298; The State of Bombay v.
Rusy Mistry and Anr., AIR 1960 SC 391.
16
Chunni Lal Mehta v. Central Spinning and Manufacturing Co., AIR 1962 SC 1314.
17
The Moot Proposition, para 20.
18
RK Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866.
15

whether any offence is made out.19 In the instant case, the Petition was filed in the
High Court on 23.02.2015, seeking quashing of the F.I.R. This Petition was dismissed
by the High Court on the same day. Thus, the sole statutory remedy available to the
Petitioner No.1 was exhausted. In light of such circumstances, the Supreme Court has
observed,
Though there is no provision like S. 482 of the Cr.P.C conferring express
power on this Court to quest or set aside any criminal proceedings pending
before a criminal court to prevent abuse of process of the Court, but this Court
has power to quash any such proceedings in exercise of its plenary and
residuary power under Art. 136 of the Constitution.20
Therefore, all the remedies have been exhausted by Petitioner No.1.
1.3.
THAT SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE HAS NOT BEEN DONE BY THE HIGH COURT
Art. 136 is the residuary power of the Apex Court to do justice where the court is
satisfied that there is injustice.21 It is submitted that the High Court did not
substantially deal with Petition for quashing the F.I.R. The High Court must
mandatorily exercise its inherent powers and quash a F.I.R. where there is no
indication of a prima facie case: on account of it being frivolous, oppressive or
vexatious and when ingredients of the crimes are not made out.
Therefore, the High Court failed to discharge substantial justice in the instant case.
1.3.1 THAT THE F.I.R. MUST BE QUASHED WHEN IT IS FRIVOLOUS, OPPRESSIVE OR
VEXATIOUS
In exercise of the powers, the Court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it
finds that initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or
quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. 22 The scope
of exercise of power under S. 482 Cr.P.C and the categories of cases where the High
Court may exercise its power under it relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse
of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice have been expressly
set out by the Supreme Court as,23
1. Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the complaint, even if they are
taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
19
The State of Andhra Pradesh v. Vangaveeti Nagaiah, AIR 2009 SC 2646.

Delhi Judicial Service Assn. v. State of Gujarat, (1991) 4 SCC 406.
21
C.C.E. v Standard Motor Products, (1989) AIR 1298 (SC). See also: H.M. Seervai, Constitutional
Law of India (4th Edn. Vol 2 2010).
22
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Shri Ravi Shankar Srivastava, IAS, AIR 2006 SC 2872; State of
Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga Swamy, AIR 2004 SC 3967.
23
State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 2042.
20

2. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint and
the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of
any offence and make out a case against the accused.
3. Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach
a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused. .24
Therefore, quashing of the F.I.R. is advisable as the due regard has not been given to
circumstances of the case and allegations have been imposed on the Petitioner No. 1
whose connection with the offences cannot even be remotely established.
1.3.2 THAT THE INHERENT POWERS OF THE HIGH COURT ARE PLENARY AND MUST
MANDATORILY BE EXERCISED IN ABSENCE OF A PRIMA FACIE CASE
The inherent powers under S. 482 Cr.P.C are present for the interest of justice. The
power under the S. 482 of Cr.P.C should be exercised ex debito justitiae to prevent the
abuse of process of the Court.25 Where even a remote chance of the prosecution
resulting in conviction did not exist, it was held to be a fit case for interference of
Court under S. 482 of the Cr.P.C26 and the Court inherently would be couched with
such power to do justice and to ensure that the doctrine of Rule of Law is not
frustrated.27 The principle object of the F.I.R. is to set the criminal law machinery in
motion.28 For registering an F.I.R., it is sine qua non that there must be information
which must disclose a cognizable offence, satisfying the requirements of S. 154(1) of
Cr.P.C.29 The F.I.R. stated that Petitioner No.1 was an Accused for offences under Ss.
302, 120B, 34 of I.P.C. It is submitted that the allegations made in the F.I.R., even if
they are taken at their face value, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make
24
Ram Narain v. Mool Chand and Ors., AIR 1960 All. 296.
State of Maharashtra v. Arun Gulab Gawali, AIR 2010 SC 3762; Kali Charan Gupta v. Ashok Kumar
Jain, 1984 (1) Crimes 221 (All); TGL Groundnut Corpn. v. Agricultural Market Committee, 1985 (1)
Crimes 908 (AP); Janakiraman v. J. Parimala Veni, 1988 (2) Crimes 529 (Mad); Ram Eqbal Singh v.
State of Bihar, 1989 (3) Crimes 33 (Pat); Hiralal Poddar v. State of Assam, 1991 (1) Crimes 65 (Gau).
26
Anurag Chopra v. State, 1989 CrLJ 2227 (Del.); Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1991 (1) Crimes 326
P&H; Union of India v. J.S. Khanna, 1972 CrLJ 849; Anilchandra Pitambardas Sagar v. Rajesh
Harjivandas Jhaveri, 1991 CrLJ 487 (Bom); Dr. Anand R. Nerkar v. Rahimbi Shaikh Madar, 1991 CrLJ
557 (Bom); Pramod v. Garvare Plastics and Polyester Ltd., 1987 (1) Crimes 603 (Bom); Vinod Doshi v.
Shiv Kumar Jain, 1987 (2) Crimes 661 (P&H).
27
State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors., 1992 AIR 604; Kodati Ramana @
Venkatarama v. Station House Officer, 1991 (3) Crimes 839 (AP); Lakha Singh v. State of Punjab,
1991 (3) Crimes 376 (P&H); Om Prakash v. State of Bihar, 1992 (1) Crimes 483 (Pat); Pranaab Kumar
Mitra v. Dilip Paul, 1992 (1) Crimes 622 (Cal); Bharat Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1991 (2) Crimes
526 (Raj); Tapan Kumar Ray v. Sunil Kumar Pradhan, 1991 (2) Crimes 630 (Ori); Shyam Rani v. State
of Maharashtra, 1981 (2) Crimes 299 (Bom); Krishna Rani v. State of Punjab, 1991 (2) Crimes 329
(P&H).
28
Hasib v. State of Bihar (1972) 4 SCC 773; Rita Devi v. State of Bihar, 1991 (2) Crimes 368 (PatDB); Misri Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 1991 (2) Crimes 421 (Raj); B.R. Bajaj v. Union of India, 1986 (3)
Crimes 473 (P&H).
29
S.N. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar, AIR 2001 SC 2960; State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992
SC 2042.
25

out a case against Petitioner No.1. This is because the essentials of the criminal justice
aim to impose criminal liability on a person do so when there is a mens rea and an
actus reus. Thus, there must be an act done and this act must be driven by a guilty
mind i.e. the crime exists only when actus reus and mens rea coincide.30 In the instant
case, there is no coincidence between the two and hence, no crime has been
committed. In light of the contentions made out in the F.I.R., it is most humbly
contended that the elements of crime are absent.
1.3.3 THAT THERE IS NO MENS REA PRESENT
A criminal act generally requires some element of wrongful intent or fault.31 This is
known as mens rea.32 Guilt in respect of all the offences created under the I.P.C. is
fastened either on the ground of intention, or knowledge or reason to believe. 33 In the
instant case, the F.I.R. accuses the Petitioner No.1 of offences of conspiracy and
murder in furtherance of common intention. The AI-based Stargazer intended to bring
the alleged conspiracy into being, absolving Petitioner No.1 of any blameworthy
intention. It is submitted that the actions of the Petitioner No.1 were well within his
capacity as creator of the software Stargazer. Therefore, it is submitted that the
requisite mens rea for either of the offences is absent in the instant case.
1.3.4 THAT THERE IS NO ACTUS REUS PRESENT
The physical element of a crime or behaviour connected to the crime is called actus
reus.34 A person must participate in all the acts necessary to constitute a particular
crime in order to be guilty thereof.35 According to S. 34 I.P.C., there must be a
criminal act done by several persons; the criminal act must be in furtherance of
common intention of all and there must be participation of all persons in furthering the
common intention.36 Similarly, the offence of criminal conspiracy under S. 120A
I.P.C. takes place when two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done an illegal
act, or an act which is not illegal by illegal means. 37 The actus reus of conspiracy is
complete in the making of an agreement in which the parties intend to carry out their
agreement. The offence of murder under S. 302 requires: i) Death of a human being ii)
30
Woolmington v. D.P.P., [1935] AC 462.

Jyoti Prashad v. State of Haryana, AIR 1993 SC 1167.
32
The Digest 17 (1st ed., Vol 14 (2), London Butterworths and Co. Ltd. 1993).
33
Shamshul Huda, The Principles of Law of Crime in India, Tagore Law Lectures, 1902, Eastern
Book Co., Lucknow, Reprint 1993, ch 5, mens rea.
34
Per Buckley J, in Re London and Globe Finance Corporation Limited, [1903] 1 Ch 728, at 732.
35
Scott v. Com., Ky. 353, 197 S.W. 2d 774 (1946).
36
Parichhat v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1972 SC 535; Chandrakant Murgyappa Umrani v. State
of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1999 SC 1557; Suresh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2001 SC 1344.
37
Mohd Khalid v. State of West Bengal, (2002) 7 SCC 334; Devender Pal Singh v. State (NCT of
Delhi), AIR 2002 SC 166; Surendra Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar 1995, Supp (1) SCC 80.
31

Such death was caused by or in consequence of the act of the accused iii) Such act was
donea) with the intention of causing death b) that the accused knew it to be likely to
cause death c) that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause
death.38 The actus reus of murder is complete in the death of a person due to the act of
another. Further, the act must be causa causans, i.e., the immediate of proximate
cause of the effect.39 In the instant case, Petitioner No.1 is charged with the offences
of conspiracy when there was no agreement between Riha and him. He has also been
charged with the offence of murder even though his actions in capacity of the creator
of Stargazer are not the causa causans of the murder. It is further to be noted that the
offences enlisted in the F.I.R. require the presence of two or more persons40 and this
requirement is not satisfied in the instant case as all communications have been
between Riha and Stargazer-an AI powered software.
1.3.5 THAT THERE IS NO INVOLVEMENT OF TWO PERSONS
It is submitted that Riha perpetrated an attack on Ish, based on a felonious execution
of the advice rendered to her by Stargazer. On being told that Riha might do
something to herself after being harassed by Ish, the AI advised Riha to call Ish to her
home, and pretend that he was going to outrage her modesty, bruise herself a little, hit
him with something and run away from the house and call the police. 41 These
interactions took place between Riha and Stargazer. Stargazer is known to be an AI
entity. Such AI systems (1) act like humans, (2) think like humans, (3) think
rationally, and (4) act rationally.42
Therefore, it is pertinent to examine the nature of such autonomous systems.
1.4 THAT THERE IS AUTONOMY IN THE FUNCTIONING OF STARGAZER
The software Stargazer executed its operations independently and was thus
autonomous in its functioning. It is a matter of fact that the use of autonomously
functioning intelligent devices is not unknown.43 Therefore, to qualify the working of
such entities, a perusal into the nature of the software is vital.
1.4.1 AI COLLECTS PREDEFINED INFORMATION
38
Hari Singh Gour, Penal Law of India, Vol 3, 11th edn, Law Publishers Allahbad, 1998, p. 2421.
Harriss Criminal Law, Ian Mclean and Peter Morrish, 22nd edn, Sweet and Maxwell, 1973, p. 22.
40
Amrita Lal Hazra and Ors. v. Emperor, (1915) ILR 42 Cal 957.
41
42
N. P. Padhy, Artificial Intelligence and Intelligent Systems 4 (2009).
43
The South Korean government now uses AI robots as soldiers to guard the border with North Korea;
as teachers in schools; and since 2012, as prison guards. See: Nick Carbone, South Korea Rolls Out
Robotic Prison Guards (Nov. 27, 2011), http://newsfeed.time.com; Autonomous drone aircraft are
crucial to increasing effects while potentially reducing cost, forward footing, and risk. See: W. J.
Hennigan, New Drone Has No Pilot Anywhere, So Whos Accountable?, L.A. Times, Jan. 26, 2012.
39

Leading research44 in the area of AI has aimed to estimate a machines ability to
exhibit intelligent behaviour equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, a human. The
strength of the machine is thus gathered from the responses it gives and how proximal
it is to the response that may be expected from a human.45 Many such expert systems
became successful tools, expanded over the years with new knowledge and improved
with better heuristics.46 Development of AI entities have resulted in intensive research
in the areas of machine learning and problem solving, which has now expanded the
use of expert systems into many new fields, with development efforts extending
beyond the confines of academic research, and AI technology increasingly replacing
traditionally human capabilities and becoming autonomous units.47 In the instant case,
the program Stargazer collected all the information about the person that it could from
the internet, social media, blogs etc. and identified a pattern and a manner in which
that person wrote, his likes, tastes, etc. It then tried to replicate the person using AI, so
one could chat with that person virtually. The experience would be as if the said
person was away, chatted via Instant Messages.48
Therefore, Stargazer is an autonomous entity.
1.4.2 AI CHOOSES ITS COURSE OF ACTION ON THE BASIS OF THE NATURE OF GIVEN
INFORMATION
The AI software is capable of estimating many complicated calculations

simultaneously or to "think" faster. An AI entity is capable of learning and of gaining
experience through examples and is thus heuristic. The more examples analyzed, the
more effective becomes the learning.49 When a set number of scenarios are fed into
the system with specific output, the machine is said to learn them. After this, if
unknown scenarios are introduced, the system will randomly generate output based on
its existing knowledge base. This output may not be correct. Thus, based on certain
rules or limitations and information given to the software, the software makes a
decision.50 All these attributes create the essence of an AI entity.51 Based on the input
44
A. M. Turing (1950) Computing Machinery and Intelligence Mind, 49: 433-460.

Ibid, p. 433-460.
46
Edwina L. Rissland, Artificial Intelligence and Law: Stepping Stones to a Model of Legal
Reasoning, 99 Yale L.J. 1957, 19611964 (1990); Alan Tyree, Expert Systems in Law 711 (1989).
47
Robert M. Glorioso and Fernando C. Colon Osorio, Engineering Intelligent Systems: Concepts and
Application"s (1980).
48
49
Terry Winograd, Thinking Machines: Can There Be? Are We? in the foundations of artificial
intelligence 167, 168 (Derek Pertridge and Yorick Wilks eds., 1990, 2006).
50
U.S. Department of Defense. (2011) Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY 2011-2036,
available online at: http://www.aviationweek.com/media/pdf/UnmannedHorizons/usroadmap2011.pdf.
45

given to the system under a behavioural pattern encoded within it, at a given point of
time, the system generates an output. Such software has the ability to act without
someone directing that action.52 Therefore, when the software was confronted with a
situation wherein the user Riha asked it on how to get rid of her relationship with
Ish;53 the software merely produced results that replicated the patterns of behaviour
which Nitin Kaushal would have displaced. Being a modern tech savvy girl, Riha
should have exercised caution before posing unusually sensitive questions to a persona
of her father who she knew wasnt real.
Therefore, the response of Stargazer was a direct result of the input provided to it.
1.4.3 THAT THE INFORMATION COLLECTED SOLELY DETERMINES ACTIONS OF AI
If an AI system commits offences and lacks the capability to change its ways through
machine learning, only incapacitation can supply an adequate answer. Regardless of
whether the AI system understands the meaning of its activity, or whether the AI
system is equipped with proper tools to perform inner changes, delinquency must still
be prevented. In a situation of this type, society must disable the physical capabilities
of the AI system to commit further offences, despite its other skills. This is what the
society does with human offenders in similar cases.54
It is pertinent to note here that Riha had expressly assented to the terms and services of
the software and is liable for risks arising thereof. The consent attracts the common
law maxim of volenti non fit injuria.55 The dictum nemo punitur pro alieno delicto
makes it abundantly clear the no one can be made punishable for the crimes of
another.56 Therefore, it is most humbly submitted that Petitioner No. 1 cannot be made
liable for the actions of the AI entity.
In light of the above presented arguments, the S.L.P. against the decision of the
Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court against Petitioner No. 1 is maintainable.
Petitioner No. 1 cannot be held responsible for the actions of the AI entity.
51
Yorick Wilks, One Small Head: Models and Theories, The Foundations of Artificial Intelligence p.
121 (Derek Partridge and Yorick Wilks Eds., 2006).
52
L. Floridi, The Philosophy of Information, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
53
54
Wilks, Loc. Cit., p. 121
55
M/s Lanco Ferro Ltd. v. N. Guravaiah and Anr., CMA NO.4750 of 2003.
56
District Collector, Dharmapuri v. T. V. Kasturi, 2014 SCC OnLine Mad 429; Ishtiyak Ahmad
Makrani v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., 2010 SCC OnLine All 1713.
8

2. THAT
THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE
HONBLE
HIGH COURT AGAINST PETITIONER NO.2 IS MAINTAINABLE.

It is submitted by Petitioner No.2 that the S.L.P. against the Order of dismissal by the
High Court is maintainable. The High Court had ordered dismissal of the Petitions
seeking quashing of F.I.R.s against the Petitioners. This submission is twofold. Firstly,
the inherent powers of the High Court must mandatorily be exercised in absence of a
prima facie case. Secondly, Petitioner No.2 lacks the required mens rea and actus reus
needed to ascertain his culpability.
2.1 THAT
HIGH COURT
MUST MANDATORILY BE
EXERCISED IN ABSENCE OF A PRIMA FACIE CASE
In a catena of cases,57 the Apex Court has held that while exercising inherent
power for quashing the F.I.R., it is for the High Court to take into consideration any
special features which appear in a particular case and to consider whether it is
expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue58. Further,
the extraordinary or inherent power does not confer any arbitrary jurisdiction on the
Court.59 Where chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and no useful purpose is
likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may
quash the proceedings.60 Therefore, while exercising its powers, the High Court would
be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds continuance of it amounts to abuse of
the process of Court61 or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the
ends of justice.62 It is submitted that in the instant case, there is a need for quashing of
the F.I.R., as the conditions for imposing criminal liability are not satisfied. It is a
settled law that a person may not be convicted of a crime unless the Prosecution
proves beyond a reasonable doubt the culpability.63 In other words in every case the
two elements of crime: actus reus and mens rea have to be proved. Therefore, the
57
R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866; Dinesh Dutt Joshi v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.,
(2001) 8 SCC 570; Central Bureau of Investigation v. A. Ravishankar Prasad and Ors., (2009) 6 SCC
351; State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.
58
Kamadev Naik v. State of Orissa, 1994 (3) Crimes 248 (248).
59
State of Maharasthra v. Ishwar Piraji Kalpatri, 1996 CrLJ 1127 (SC); Rupal Deo Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal
Singh Gill, AIR 1996 SC 309; Medchl Chemicals and Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd., AIR 2000
SC 1869; Ram Nath Marethia Reg Man, United India Insuarance Co. Ltd. v. Shashin H. Bhavsar, 2002
(4) Crimes 502 (508) (Guj); Alok Kumar Mitra Mustagi v. State of West Bangal, 2002 (4) Crimes 337
(340,341) (Cal); Shankar Lal v. State, 2003 (4) Crimes 410 (Raj); Sanapareddy Maheedhar Seshagiri v.
State of Andhra Pradesh, 2008 CrLJ 1375 (1384,1385) (SC).
60
Madhavrao J. Scindia and Ors. v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Ors., (1998) 1 SCC 18.
61
Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary and Ors., (1992), 4 SCC 305.
62
State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa and Anr., (2002) 3 SCC 89.
63
Halsburys Laws of England, 1374 (5th ed., Vol. 11.3, LexisNexis Butterworths 2010).
9

inherent powers of the High Court must mandatorily be exercised in absence of a
prima facie case.
2.1.1 THAT PETITIONER NO. 2 LACKS THE REQUISITE MENS REA AND ACTUS REUS
The criminal act must have a force behind it.64 Our legal system embodies the maxim
actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea65 i.e., the act does not make one guilty unless
the mind is also guilty.66 Thus, mens rea forms one of the most important ingredients
of criminal liability.67 The physical element of the crime is called the actus reus.68 A
person must participate in all the acts necessary to constitute a particular crime in
order to be guilty thereof.69 In the instant case, there has been no establishment that
the Petitioner No. 2 was responsible for the alleged buying of coke. Petitioner No. 2
devised an automated bot that ordered 20 units of Coke from Internet sites that
serviced his area the moment it was offered on a 5% or more discount. The code for
the bot included his payment details and delivery address, so the entire transaction was
automatic and seamless. The bot accidently ordered Coke from a decoy website
setup by the police to catch drug peddlers and that had brought the police to his door
step and led to the registration of an FIR against Petitioner No. 2.70 Thus the bot was
capable of acting without anyone immediately directing that action 71 and was
autonomous.72 Nowhere in the entire process was Petitioner No. 2 even remotely
involved and neither did he have any intention to buy the cocaine. It is worthwhile to
mention that a similar situation was reported in which an automated online shopping
bot by the name of Random Darknet Shopper was programmed and instructed to
shop on a darknet market containing, inter alia, illegal items. Criminal liability was
not imposed on the developers as it was held that they did not have the required mens
64
State v. B.D. Meattle, AIR 1957 Punj 74.

State Of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram @ Vishnu Dutta, (2012) 1 SCC 602; Kartar Singh v. State Of
Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569; R. Balakrishna Pillai v. State Of Kerala, (2003) 9 SCC 700; T.N.
Lakshmaiah v. State Of Karnataka, (2002) 1 SCC 219; Siddhapal Kamala Yadav v. State Of
Maharashtra, (2009) 1 SCC 124; Hari Singh Gond v. State Of M.P, AIR 2009 SC 31; S. Jagadeesan v.
The State, on 9 April, 2003 (Unreported); Assistant Commercial Taxes v. Agarwal Steel
Industries, 2006 (146) STC 41; Assistant Commercial Taxes v. Kanoi Dal Mill 2006, (146) STC 426 .
66
The Digest 17 (1st ed., Vol 14 (2), London Butterworths and Co. Ltd. 1993).
67
State of Maharasthra v. Mayer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722.
68
Per Buckley J, in Re London and Globe Finance Corporation Limited [1903] 1 Ch 728, at 732.
69
Scott v. Com., Ky. 353, 197 S.W. 2d 774 (1946).
70
The Moot Proposition, para18.
71
Cf. J. H.Moor, The Nature, Importance, and Difficulty of Machines Ethics IEEE Intelligent
Systems, 31:4, 2006, pp. 18-21.
72
Ronald C. Arkin, Intelligent Robotics and Autonomous Agents, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology Press 2004.
65
10

rea.73 Therefore, it may be ascertained that the bot created by Petitioner No. 2 was an
autonomous machine. These entities are self-directed toward a goal in that they do not
require outside control, and are able to make a decision on a set of rules and/or
limitations based on information that it deems important to the decision process.74
Making such decisions about rules, however, is accomplished by way of programming
algorithms into a software program, where the machine can learn and thus choose
which means to use or pursue goals based on the different types of programming
platforms75 and approaches.76 With an autonomous machine, the machine is merely
finding a route that it deems correct, given its programming structures and
experience.77
The proof of a mans intention can be probed by determining whether there is any
reasonable interpretation of his actions other than the hypothesis that he intended the
consequences.78 Since in the instant case, the actions of the bot were not anticipated to
result in buying of cocaine, such an action cannot be attributed to the developer of the
bot. It may further be noted that the F.I.R. against Petitioner No. 2 has been filed
under S. 22 of the NDPS Act. S. 22 of the NDPS Act penalizes the manufacture,
possession, sale, purchase, transport, inter-state import or export of Psychotropic
Substances. Therefore, the actus reus of the crime is made out if there is the
manufacture, possession, sale, purchase, transport, inter-state import or export of the
Psychotropic Substance. In the instant case, the accidental purchase of Cocaine instead
of the aerated beverage Coke was an accidental action taken up the autonomous bot
devised by Petitioner No. 2. The drug allegedly purchased was therefore Cocaine.
It is a matter of fact that Cocaine is not a Psychotropic Substance. S. 2 (xxiii) of NDPS
Act defines a Psychotropic Substance as those specified in the Schedule. However,
the Schedule of the Act does not include Cocaine or any form Coca derivative.
Therefore, the charges set out in the F.I.R. are wrongly framed. This is reflective of
the lackadaisical approach of the Police in the instant case. This view has been iterated
by the Bombay High Court which held, that a substance which is not specified in the
73
Jeremy Byellin, Whos liable for a bots criminal acts?, 14 January 2015 available at
http://blog.legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.com/corporate-counsel/whos-liable-for-a-bots-criminal-acts/.
74
U.S. Department of Defense. (2011) Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY 2011-2036,
available at: http://www.aviationweek.com/media/pdf/UnmannedHorizons/usroadmap2011.pdf.
75
Cf.Lin, Bekey and Abney, Autonomous Military Robotics: Risk, Ethics, Design, p. 66.
76
W. Wallach, and C. Allen. Moral Machines: Teaching Robots Right from Wrong, Oxford University
Press, 2009, pp. 83-124.
77
L. Floridi, The Philosophy of Information, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
78
Glanville Williams, Text Book Of Criminal Law, (2nd Edn., Universal Law Publishing,1999).
11

Schedule cannot be punished under S. 22.79 Further, when Petitioner No. 2 was
arrested by the Police, it is a matter of fact that he had no possession of the drug as
alleged in the F.I.R. It is a settled law80 that possession of the drug is essential for
establishing a prima facie case against the Accused, therefore the F.I.R. is deemed to
be quashed. The facts of the present case depict an unfortunate plight of Petitioner No.
2 and also expose the reality as to how the accused got trapped into procedural rigours
despite having a very strong case on merits. Therefore, the quintessential ingredients
for ascertaining criminal liability are not made out against Petitioner No.2.
2.1.2 THAT THE CODE FUNCTIONED AUTONOMOUSLY
Petitioner No. 2 had created a code to enable him to search for online markets
supplying coke (an aerated beverage) in his area of residence the moment it was
available on discount.81 The complexities in the functioning of more developed data
systems needs to be examined in order to ascertain the true nature of acts that are done
by them. A computer program is a detailed, step-by-step set of instructions telling a
computer exactly what to do.82 Ordinarily, such codes are created in a popular
programming-language called Python.83. Firstly, a back-end database is created of
websites satisfying certain constant parameters: coke and location of delivery, in
the instant case. Secondly, the constant parameters are inserted into the system: the
cost price of coke, recipients address and payment details, in the instant case.
Thirdly, the script contacts (pings) the database on regular intervals to ascertain the
changing parameter available on the websites: the selling price of coke, in the
instant case. Fourthly, the script performs autonomous calculations to ascertain if the
given condition is satisfied: the changing selling price of coke was compared with
the cost price of coke to calculate the discount, in the instant case. Fifthly, the
discount is compared with the expected result: the expected result is 5% or more
discount on the cost price, in the instant case. Sixthly, as soon as the above condition
is satisfied, the code initiates the action it is expected to perform: an order for 20 units
of coke was placed on the decoy website, in the instant case.
The entire execution of the programme is autonomous insofar as the user creating the
code does not instruct the programme to function in a particular manner: the code
79
Pukhrambham Surchandsingh Ibohan Singh v. State of Maharashtra, 2008 SCC OnLine Bom 1266.
Shyam Babu Vishwakarma @ RamBabu alias Shyam Babu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2012 (1) RCR
(Criminal) 750; Salimkhan Shabbirkhan Pathan v State of Gujarat, 2012 Indlaw GUJ 1090.
81
82
Zelle, J., Python Programming: An Introduction to Computer Science, Computers & Programs, p.2.
83
Lamber, K.A., Fundamentals of Python, Why Python?, p. xiv.
80
12

functions on the basis of the input given and the output expected. The list of websites
(back-end database) is arrived at automatically by the code by searching for websites
matching the keyword provided. Once the code is written, it checks its back-end
database for certain conditions specified by the creator.84 The conditions depend on the
constant parameter provided by the creator and the changing parameter provided
by the website.85 Once the condition is satisfied, it executes the output without external
assistance.86 As soon as a discount of 5% or more was available, the payment details,
along with Petitioner No. 2s address, were automatically given to the website. This
led to the order of coke being placed on the decoy website. Therefore, the bot devised
by Petitioner No.2 acted independently.
In light of the above presented arguments, the SLP filed under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 against the decision of the Honble Punjab and Haryana
High Court in the matter of quashing of F.I.R. against Petitioner No. 2 is maintainable.
Petitioner No. 2 is not responsible for the actions of the bot created by him.
84
Cf. S. Matteo, D. Marino and G.Tamburrini Learning Robots Interacting with Humans: From
Epistemic Risk to Responsibility AI andSociety, 22, 2008, pp. 309-311.
85
Thomas Bangert v London South Bank University, [2010] EWHC 2315 (QB)
86
A. Beaver Moral Machines and the Threat of Ethical Nihilism in P. Lin, K. Abney and G. A.
Bekey (eds.) Robot Ethics: The Ethical and Social Implications of Robotics, MIT Press: 2012, pp. 333344.
13

3.
THAT THE ORDINANCE PROMULGATED BY THE PRESIDENT IS NOT LEGALLY

TENABLE.
The Writ Petition seeks to challenge the validity of the Presidential Ordinance dated
20.02.15. The submissions made by Petitioner No. 1 are fourfold. Firstly, the Writ
Petition is maintainable. Secondly, the Ordinance is ultra vires Article 14 of the
Constitution. Thirdly, the Ordinance is ultra vires Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
3.1. THAT THE INSTANT WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE
In a country governed by Rule of law, the power of Judicial Review is supreme.
Similar to ordinary laws, the Courts are empowered to review the satisfaction of the
President to promulgate Ordinances when the same has been exercised arbitrarily and
unsustainably. Writs may be issued to strike down an Ordinance violating Art. 14, on
ground of arbitrariness and unreasonableness and for violating Art. 19(1)(g), as an
unreasonable restriction on the right to trade. The power of the President to
promulgate Ordinances during recess of the Parliament has been enshrined in Art. 123
of the Constitution. The President is essentially not the repository of the legislative
power of the Union.87 The Ordinance making power cannot be used to circumvent the
law-making powers of the Legislature.88 This power is exercisable only when both
Houses of Parliament are not in session and it has been conferred ex necessitate in
order to enable the executive to meet an emergent situation.89
3.1.1. THAT PRESIDENTIAL SATISFACTION IS SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW
The power to promulgate Ordinances can only be exercised after due consideration of
the object sought to be regulated. The Presidential satisfaction is not wholly outside
judicial purview and the courts may assess the satisfaction inter alia on arbitrariness,
vagueness and as based on irrelevant considerations. It is a settled law a prima facie
case may be made out for non-existence of circumstances which allegedly necessitated
issuance of the Ordinance.90 Moreover, the power of courts to review Ordinances
violating fundamental rights is unconditional. In a country governed by Rule of law,
all executive actions are subject to Judicial Review.91 To this end, the courts can
87
R.C. Cooper v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 564.

D. C. Wadhwa (Dr.) v. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 579. See: Krishna Kumar Sinha v. State of
Bihar, 1998 (5) SCC 643.
89
R.K. Garg and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (1981) 4 SCC 675; T. Venkata Reddy v. State of
Andhra Pradesh, (1985) 3 SCC 198.
90
Gyanendra Kumar and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., 1996 Indlaw DEL 308.
91
Judicial Accountability v. Union of India and Ors., (1991) 4 SCC 699; Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v.
Shri Raj Narain and Anr., (1975) Supp. SCC 1; Council of Civil Service Union v. Minister for the Civil
88
14

question Presidential satisfaction and review their decision.92 It must satisfy the
principles of vagueness,93 arbitrariness,94 reasonableness95 and public interest96.
Where the Presidential satisfaction is based on irrelevant consideration,97 extraneous
grounds98 and without circumspection and objectivity99, the courts can review the
decision. A decision which is clearly unsustainable can also be reviewed. 100 Primary
law-making authority is the Legislature and not the Executive.101 The power of
promulgation has to be used only to meet extraordinary and grave situations.102 The
power thus cannot be exercised in a manner that would constitute fraud on the
Constitution and only be exercised by striking a balance between governmental
powers and individual liberties.103 The legislative power should not be exercised to
usurp the function of the legislature.104 The Constituent Assembly deliberately chose
Service, [1984] 3 All E.R. 935; Mahabir Auto Stores & Ors. v. Indian Oil Corporation & Ors., J.T.
1990 1 S.C. 363; Chief Settlement Commissioner, Rehabilitation Department, Punjab and Ors. v. Om
Parkash & Ors., [1968] 3 SCR 655 660-661; Eshugbayi Eleka v. Officer Administering the Government
of Nigeria, [1931] AC 662 670; State of M.P. v. Bharat Singh, AIR 1967 SC 1170; L. Chandra Kumar
v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261.
92
A.K. Roy v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 710.
93
Bhagat Ram Sharma v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1988 SC 740; State of Rajasthan v. Mangilal
Pindwal, AIR 1996 SC 2181; Koteswar Vittal Kamath v. K.Rangappa Baliga & Co., AIR 1969 SC 504;
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Hirendra Pal Singh & Ors., (2011) 5 SCC 305; Ameer-un-Nissa
Begum v. Mahboob Begum & Ors., AIR 1955 SC 352; B.N. Tewari v. Union of India & Ors., AIR
1965 SC 1430; India Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. CTO, Bhavanipore & Ors., AIR 1975 SC 155; Indian Express
Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1986 SC 515; West U.P. Sugar
Mills Assn. v. State of U.P., AIR 2002 SC 948; Zile Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors., (2004) 8 SCC 1;
State of Kerala v. Peoples Union for Civil Liberties, Kerala State Unit & Ors., (2009) 8 SCC 46;
Behram Khurshid Pesikaka v. State of Bombay, AIR 1955 SC 123; Mahendra Lal Jaini v. State of Uttar
Pradesh & Ors., AIR 1963 SC 1019; Harbilas Rai Bansal v. State of Punjab & Anr., AIR 1996 SC 857;
Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India, [1979] 3 SCR 1014; Kasturi
Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, [1980] 3 SCR 1338; Col. A.S. Sangwan v. Union
of India, [1980] Supp. SCC 559.
94
State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. v. K Shyam Sunder & Ors., AIR 2011 SC 3470; Ajay Hasia & Ors. v.
Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors., AIR 1981 SC 487; E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., AIR
1974 SC 555; Smt. Meneka Gandhi v. Union of India & Anr., AIR 1978 SC 597; M/s. Sharma
Transport Rep. by D.P. Sharma v. Government of A.P. & Ors., AIR 2002 SC 322; Bombay Dyeing &
Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Bombay Environmental Action Group & Ors., AIR 2006 SC 1489;
Bidhannagar (Salt Lake) Welfare Assn. v. Central Valuation Board & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 2276; Grand
Kakatiya Sheraton Hotel and Towers Employees & Workers Union v. Srinivasa Resorts Limited &
Ors., AIR 2009 SC 2337.
95
Maneklal Chhotalal & Ors. v. M.G. Makwana & Ors., 1967 (3) SCR 65.
96
A.K. Roy v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 710.
97
Indian Nut Products v. Union of India, (1994) 4 SCC 269, 275.
98
State of Bihar v. Union of India and Anr., 1970 2 SCR 522; State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Union of
India, 1977 AIR 1361.
99
Dr. A.K. Shaihar and Ors. v. Vice Chancellor, Benares Hindu University, (1961) 3 SCR 386.
100
State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, 1977 AIR 1361; Ramesh Chand Sharma and Anr. v.
Commissioner of Police and Ors., 2005 Indlaw DEL 367; Reliance Airport Developers Pvt. Ltd. v.
Airport Authority of India & Ors., [2006] RD-SC 758; Cellular Operators Association v. Union of India
& Ors., [2002] RD-SC 552.
101
Gurudevdatta VKSSS Maryadit and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., AIR 2001 SC 980.
102
Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol. 8, Part V, Chapter III, pp. 201 to 217.
103
K. Krishnankutty and Ors. v. State of Kerala, AIR 1985 Ker 148.
104
D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, 1987 AIR 579; R.C. Cooper v. Union of India, 1970 AIR 564.
15

to vest in the President legislative-power during Parliamentary recess instead of a
general power available continually.105 This indicates the legislative intent to limit the
power of the President as to be exercised only limitedly.
In the instant case, the Ordinance has been promulgated arbitrarily. An objective
inquiry into the nature of Artificial Intelligence reveals that it operates primarily
autonomously.106 The effect it has depends on the intent of the person putting it to
action. Artificial Technology neither facilitates nor instigates commission of crimes
but is merely meant to advance technology by developing intelligent systems. 107 The
promulgation is unreasonable and couched in an imprecise and vague language. An
unqualified prohibition on Artificial Technology-based products is unsustainable.
Artificial Technology is an intrinsic element of common products. The ubiquity of the
technology can be illustrated by naming a few devices premised on AI: smart
phones,108 search engines109, online maps110, televisions,111 cars,112 nuclear reactors,113
medical equipments,114 financial systems for stock markets,115 satellites116. A
prohibition on Artificial Intelligence largely defeats public purpose. AI already plays a
prominent role in military operations117, bank software118 and air traffic control119. AI
105
Art. 123 has been borrowed from Art. 42, The Government of India Act, 1935. A similar provision
empowering the President to promulgate any time was deliberately omitted in the current Constitution.
106
Supra Issue 1.4 at p. 6
107
Grosz, Barbara and Davis, Randall, A Report to ARPA on Twenty-First Century Intelligent
Systems, Introduction, para 4.
108
Burgess, Matt, Artificial Intelligence: Future Smartphones Will Know Your Mood, Factor Tech,
available et: http://factor-tech.com/connected-world/4751-artificial-intelligence-future-smartphoneswill-know-your-mood/.
109
McCallum, Andrew et al, A Machine Learning Approach to Building Domain-Specific Search
Engines.
110
Wyszynski, K., Google Sets a New Landmark in Creating an Artificial Intelligence,
Articles.Informer.com.
111
Prabhala, S. and Ganapathy, S., Emerging Artificial Intelligence Application: Transforming
Television into Smart Television Semantic Methods for Knowledge Management and Communication
Studies in Computational Intelligence, Vol. 381, 2011, pp 311-318.
112
Rathod, S.R., An Autonomous Driverless Car: An Idea to Overcome the Urban Road Challenges,
Journal of Information Engineering and Applications, Vol.3, No.13, 2013, pg. 34.
113
The Pressurized Water Reactor of the power plan is checked for safety and efficiency using
Artificial Intelligence. See: Soares De Almeida, J.C., Application of Artificial Intelligence Techniques
in Modeling and Control of a Nuclear Power Plant Pressurizer System.
114
AI is used for patient monitoring and medical diagnosis. See: Weiss J.C. et al, Machine Learning
for Personalized Medicine: Predicting Primary Myocardial Infarction from Electronic Health
Records, Tatara, E., Cinar, A.: Interpreting ECG Data by Integrating Statistical and Artificial
Intelligence Tools, IEEE Mag. on Eng. Med. and Biol. 21(1), 3641 (2002).
115
Lee, K.C., Kim, H.S.: A Fuzzy Cognitive Map-Based Bi-Directional Inference Mechanism: An
Application to Stock Investment Analysis, Intl. Sys. in Acct. Fin. and Mang, 6, 4157 (1997)
116
Disaster-monitoring satellites effectively employ AI through remote-sensing and aerial photography
to avert and predict disasters. See: Haupt, Sue E., Pasini, A., Artificial Intelligence Methods in the
Environmental Science, Springer Netherlands (2009), p. 3.
117
AI is used in unmanned aerial vehicles in search, rescue and destroy missions. See: Gallimore, J.J.,
Prabhala, S.: Creating Collaborative Agents with Personality for Supervisory Control of Multiple
16

has the potential to bring great value to the developing world in a wide array of areas,
including healthcare, education, transport and agriculture.120 It has been executed
without due regard to the benefits arising from its implementations. Stargazer too
offered psychological assistance to those bereaved by the death of their kith and kin
and not instigate its users to commit crimes.
It is submitted that the Presidential satisfaction was arbitrary and not based on relevant
considerations. The Ordinance is unsustainable inasmuch as Artificial Intelligencebased codes and hardware are an intrinsic element of a wide-range of common
products.
3.1.2. THAT
AN
ORDINANCE
VIOLATING FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS IS SUBJECT TO
JUDICIAL REVIEW
An Ordinance stands on the same footing as legislative laws. The right to move the
Supreme Court under Art. 32 for alleged violation of Fundamental Rights by an
Ordinance remains preserved.
An Ordinance is a law.121 It has the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament122
and is consequently subjected to the limitations ordinarily applicable to such laws.123
The Ordinance is not an executive action and is clothed with all the attributes of an
Act of Legislature carrying with it all its incidents, immunities and limitations under
the Constitution.124 The courts can examine the constitutional validity of laws under
the power of Judicial Review.125 Art. 32 of the Constitution safeguards the right to
move the Supreme Court to strike-down any law violating fundamental rights of
citizens.126 This power of Judicial Review to examine the Ordinance on the touchstone
of fundamental rights is part of the basic structure.127
UCAVs. In: Human Factors and Medicine Panel Symposium on Human Factors of Uninhabited
Military Vehicles as Force Multipliers, Biarritz, France (2006)
118
CNN,
AI
Set
to
Exceed
Human
Brain
Power,
available
at
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/07/24/ai.bostrom.
119
Srinivasan, D., Xin, J., Chue, R.L.: Evaluation of Adaptive Neural Network Models for Freeway
Incident Detection. IEEE Tran. on Intl. Trans. Sys. 5(1), 111 (2004).
120
Eagle, Nathan and Horvitz, Eric, Artificial Intelligence for Development, Technical Report SS-1001; Thrun, Sebastian, Self-Driving Carsan AI-Robotics Challenge.
121
Art. 13, the Constitution of India, 1950 states that law includes inter alia Ordinance.
122
Art. 123(3), the Constitution of India, 1950. See: R.K. Garg and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.,
(1981) 4 SCC 675.
123
Krishna Kumar Singh and Anr. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1998 SC 2288; P. Venkateseshamma v. State
of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1976 AP 1; Makhan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1964 CriLJ 21.
124
K. Nagaraj v. State of Andra Pradesh, (1985) 1 SCC 524.
125
E.S. Crown, Essay on the Judicial Review in Encyclopedia of Social Sciences, Vol. VII, p. 457;
See: Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461, State of Madras v. V.G. Row, AIR
1952 SC 196, A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27.
126
Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla and Ors., 1976 AIR 1207; Sree Mohan
Chowdhury v. the Chief Commissioner, Union Territory of Tripura, [1964] 3 SCR 442, Makhan Singh
17

In the instant case, the Writ Petition has been filed under Art. 32 seeks to allow the
Honble Supreme Court to assess the Ordinance and pass appropriate writs to make it
commensurate with the Indian Constitution.128
It is submitted that the Ordinance is subject to Judicial Review for violation of Art. 14
and Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, 1950.
Thus, it is submitted that the instant Writ Petition is maintainable under Art. 32.
3.2. THAT THE ORDINANCE IS ULTRA VIRES ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA, 1950
Art. 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of
the law.129 As part of the basic structure,130 Art. 14 acts as a protection against
arbitrariness, injustice, unfairness and unreasonableness131 and is premised on Diceys
Rule of Law132. The States action are required to be fair and informed by reason.133
In the instant case, the Ordinance promulgated is in violation of principles of
reasonableness. It bans all forms of commercial research, sale and dissemination of
AI-based software effectively bringing the IT industry to a standstill. Punitive and
prohibitory laws must be carefully worded to define in clear and precise terms its
scope to prevent misuse and affix liability in exact terms.134 The inaccurate language
of the Ordinance gives an unbridled and unqualified power to the authorities.
It is submitted that the imprecise terminology coupled with its devastating
ramifications contributes to the unreasonableness of the Ordinance.
Thus, it is submitted that the Ordinance is ultra vires Art. 14 of the Constitution.
v. State of Punjab, [1964] 4 SCR 797; Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar and Ors., [1966] 1
SCR 709.
127
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala and Anr., AIR 1973 SC 1461, Satya Pal Singh and Ors. v.
State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., 2000 Cri LJ 569; Subrata Chattoraj and Anr. v. Union of India and
Ors., (2014) 8 SCC 796.
128
State of Nagaland v. Ratan Singh, (1966) 3 SCR 830, 851, 852; Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh
& Anr., (1975) 3 SCR 946, 955-56.
129
The Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 14 states: Equality before law: The State shall not deny to any
person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.
130
Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299.
131
E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR
1978 SC 597; R.D. Shetty v. Airport Authority, AIR 1979 SC 1628.
132
Dicey, Law of Constitution (10th edition), pp. 202-203.
133
Girish v. State Of Karnataka, ILR 1994 KAR 439, 1994; M/s Dwarkadas Marlaria and Sons v. Board
of Trustees of the Port of Bombay, (1989) 3 SCC 293; Council of Civil Service Union v. Minister for
the Civil Service, (1984) 3 All E.R. 935; Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport
Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCR 1014.
134
Commonwealth v. Hill, 11 Mass. 136 (1814); Michael, (1840) 2 Mood. 120, 169 E.R. 48; Johnson v.
State, 38 So. 182, 183 (Ala. 1904); People v. Monks, 24 P.2d 508, 511 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1933);
United States v. Bryan, 483 F.2d 88, 92 (3d Cir. 1973); Boushea v. United States, 173 F.2d 131, 134
(8th Cir. 1949).
18

3.3
THAT
THE
ORDINANCE
IS
ULTRA
VIRES
ARTICLE 19(1)(G)
OF
THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950

A restriction which, instead of furthering interest of the public, has damaging
ramifications on the general public is not reasonable. Moreover, when a drastic
restriction is placed, where a less severe restriction could achieve the same object, the
restriction is not reasonable. Public interest is not served by causing severe hardships
to a large number of citizens. A straitjacket prohibition falls foul of procedural
reasonability.
3.3.1 THAT THE ORDINANCE PLACES AN UNQUALIFIED EMBARGO ON AI
While evaluating the restriction, regard should be given to its direct and immediate
impact on Fundamental Rights of the citizens affected thereby, the necessity of the
restrictions and the inherently pernicious nature of the act prohibited.
The Indian Constitution guarantees to all citizens the right to practice any profession,
or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.135 The right is qualified to the extent
that reasonable restrictions may be imposed in the interest of the general public.136
While assessing the restriction, courts must consider the problem faced and the
solution sought to curb the problem.137 The restriction placed must have a reasonable
nexus with the underlying purpose sought to be achieved. 138
In the instance case, the Ordinance strictly prohibits research, sale and distribution of
Artificial Intelligence-based hardware and code. The promulgated ordinance, by
applying a straitjacket prohibition on artificial intelligence and its variants, wholly
restricts the application of Art. 19(1)(g). By banning commercial research, the
ordinance prevents citizens from engaging in any profession or occupation relating to
development and experimentation of Artificial Technology, which forms a major
chunk of the Information Technology Sector. The restriction creates bottlenecks in the
growth of the IT Sector and adversely affects lives of those engaged in the
telecommunications sector along with 87 million users of smartphones. 139 The effects
of the blanket ban would be felt by the Indian Information Technology Sector as a
whole; those services that dont directly employ AI but are cognate to software that
135
The Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 19(1)(g).

Ibid.,, Art. 19(6).
137
Jyoti Pershad v. The Administrator for the Union Territory of Delhi, 1962 SCR (2) 125.
138
State of Madras v. V.G. Row, AIR 1952 SC 196.
139
IAMAI Annual Report 2012-2013, p. 21.
136
19

uses AI would be thrown out of gear as well.140 Prohibition on sale and dissemination
of hardware effectively throttles the right to conduct ones trade and business without
restrictions too. The solution sought doesnt comprehensively address the problem of
misuse of technology. In such instances, technology is required to be regulated and
controlled, and not prohibited. The nexus between the objective sought and the
solution employed isnt tenable either. The act prohibited isnt pernicious per se.
Those that misuse AI must be brought to the book instead of banning the technology
in toto. It is submitted that public interest is not furthered by causing hardships to the
large number of users of AI-based entities. The restriction fails to adequately address
the problem of misuse of technology.
3.3.2
THAT
A DRASTIC RESTRICTION HAS BEEN IMPOSED WHERE A LESS SEVERE
RESTRICTION WOULD SUFFICE
It must not be possible to achieve public interest without achieving a less severe
restraint.141 The burden of proving that a total ban on the exercise of the right alone
may ensure the maintenance of the interest of general public lies on the State.142
In the instant case, the disastrous ramifications outweigh the necessity of the
restrictions. A few stray incidents of misuse of AI do not justify its outright
prohibition. A restriction may only be made in the interest of the general public where
a less drastic restriction would not ensure furtherance of interest.143 To discourage
citizens from blaming machines for offences, Respondent No. 2 should strengthen its
cyber laws to attribute mens rea to the operator of the programme. The alleged risks
associated with AI may also be regulated by introducing licences to operators and
users of AI: a less drastic and a more viable solution than banning. It is submitted that
the restriction is drastic and a less severe restriction of regularization of AI serves
public interest instead of a blanket prohibition.
In light of the above presented arguments, the sweeping prohibition of the Ordinance
coupled with the unreasonably harsh restrictions and imprecise language makes it
unreasonable deeming it ultra vires Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
140
Sectors such as telecommunications, medical diagnosis, stock trading, remote-sensing, military

equipments rely on Artificial Intelligence. See: Russell, Stuart J.; Norvig, Peter, The State of the Art,
Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (2nd ed.), p. 28.
141
Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad v. Jan Mohammed Usmanbhai and Anr., 1986 SCR (2) 700.
142
State of Madras v. V.G. Row, AIR 1952 SC 196.
143
Mohd. Faruk v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1970 AIR 93; Narendra Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India,
1960 AIR 430; Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1950 (SCR) 759,763; Maneklal Chhotalal
& Ors. v. M.G. Makwana & Ors., 1967 (3) SCR 65.
20
PRAYER
In light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and cases cited it is most humbly
prayed before this Honble CourtA. That the Order of the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court dated
23.02.2015 be set aside and the F.I.R. against Petitioner No. 1 be quashed.
B. That the Order of the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court dated
23.02.2015 be set aside and the F.I.R. against Petitioner No. 2 be quashed.
C. That the Ordinance dated 20.02.2015 be struck down.
Or grant such other relief as the court may deem fit in the light of justice, equity and
good conscience.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONERS SHALL DUTY BOUND EVER PRAY.
Sd/-
Counsel for the Petitioners
21

AIL Petitioners

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

AIL Petitioners

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHECKMATE 2015, ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW, MOHALI

IN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Special Leave Petition No. ______________ of 2015

PETITION FILED SEEKING SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL

U.T. OF CHANDIGARH..RESPONDENT NO.1

VAIBHAV SHARMA...PETITIONER NO.2

STATE OF PUNJAB.RESPONDENT NO.2

MANU SHARMAPETITIONER NO.3

UNION OF INDIARESPONDENT NO.3

Most Respectfully Submitted before the Honble Chief Justice of India

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS DRAWN AND FILED BY

CHECKMATE 2015, ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW, MOHALI

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ...........I

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .......XIV

STATEMENT OF FACTS .....XV

QUESTIONS OF LAW .XXI

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS XXII

THAT EXCEPTIONAL AND SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST FOR THE APPLICATION

THAT THERE EXISTS A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ......................... 1

THAT THE F.I.R. MUST BE QUASHED WHEN IT IS FRIVOLOUS, OPPRESSIVE

THE INHERENT POWERS OF THE

ARE PLENARY AND

MUST MANDATORILY BE EXERCISED IN ABSENCE OF A PRIMA FACIE

THAT THERE IS NO MENS REA PRESENT .5

THAT THERE IS NO ACTUS REUS PRESENT .5

THAT THERE IS NO INVOLVEMENT OF TWO PERSONS6

THAT THERE IS AUTONOMY IN THE FUNCTIONING OF STARGAZER ...6

AI COLLECTS PREDEFINED INFORMATION ................................................6

CHOOSES ITS COURSE OF ACTION ON THE BASIS OF THE NATURE OF

THE INFORMATION COLLECTED SOLELY DETERMINES ACTIONS OF

CHECKMATE 2015, ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW, MOHALI

THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE

THE INHERENT POWERS OF THE

EXERCISED IN ABSENCE OF A PRIMA FACIE CASE 9

THAT PETITIONER NO. 2

LACKS THE REQUISITE MENS REA AND ACTUS

THAT THE CODE FUNCTIONED AUTONOMOUSLY ....................................12

THAT THE ORDINANCE PROMULGATED BY THE PRESIDENT IS NOT LEGALLY

THAT THE INSTANT WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE .14

THAT PRESIDENTIAL SATISFACTION IS SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW....14

THAT AN ORDINANCE VIOLATING FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS IS SUBJECT TO

THAT THE ORDINANCE IS ULTRA VIRES ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

THAT THE ORDINANCE IS ULTRA VIRES ARTICLE 19(1)(G) OF THE CONSTITUTION

THAT THE ORDINANCE PLACES AN UNQUALIFIED EMBARGO ON

THAT A DRASTIC RESTRICTION HAS BEEN IMPOSED WHERE A LESS

CHECKMATE 2015, ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW, MOHALI

CHECKMATE 2015, ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW, MOHALI

A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras

A.K. Roy v. Union of India

AIR 1982 SC 710

Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur v. (1976) 2 SCC 521

Shivakant Shukla and Ors.

Ajay Hasia & Ors. v. Khalid Mujib AIR 1981 SC 487

Alok Kumar Mitra Mustagi v. State of 2002 (4) Crimes

Mahboob AIR 1955 SC 352

Begum and Ors.

Amrita Lal Hazra and Ors. v. Emperor

CHECKMATE 2015, ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW, MOHALI

Anilchandra Pitambardas Sagar v. Rajesh 1991 CrLJ 487

1986 (3) Crimes

Anurag Chopra v. State

1989 CrLJ 2227

Assistant Commercial Taxes v. Agarwal 2006 (146) STC

Assistant Commercial Taxes v. Kanoi Dal 2006 (146) STC