1st International and 7th National Dr. B.S. Goel Moot Court Competition

• The present matter is listed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indica through a Special Leave Petition (Criminal) under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, read with a Writ Petition (Criminal) under Article 32, challenging the final judgment and order dated 12 March 2025 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madho Pradesh, which affirmed the conviction and sentence awarded by the Court of the Chief
  Metropolitan Magistrate, City of Rudrapur.The Petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court on grounds of substantial questions of constitutional importance, involving interpretation of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, extraterritorial application of cyber laws, admissibility of electronic evidence, and protection of fundamental rights in the digital ecosystem.
• The Republic of Indica is a digitally progressive State with widespread internet penetration and a rapidly expanding cyber ecosystem. Alongside digital growth, the State has witnessed a steep rise in cyber-enabled offences, particularly those targeting women through impersonation, online harassment, and circulation of obscene material.Ms. Kavya Sharma, aged 24 years, is a postgraduate student of Sociology at a reputed government university in Madho Pradesh. She belongs to a conservative middle-class family and maintains a limited digital presence, primarily for academic purposes. Her social media accounts were private and accessible only to a restricted group.The Accused, Mr. Arjun Mehra, aged 28 years, is a diploma holder in computer applications and works as a freelance software technician. He possesses advanced technical knowledge of email servers, proxy networks, anonymisation tools, and social media algorithms.
• In May 2023, the families of Ms. Kavya Sharma and Mr. Arjun Mehra were introduced through a distant relative for the purpose of considering a matrimonial alliance. During this period, the accused gained access to the complainant’s email address and limited social media information. After several meetings, on 20 June 2023, Ms. Kavya Sharma clearly communicated her unwillingness to proceed with the alliance.
  While the accused initially accepted the rejection, he continued to contact her through emails and messaging applications.Between July and August 2023, the accused sent repeated messages from different phone numbers, ranging from apologetic requests to veiled threats, warning that the complainant would “face consequences” for rejecting him.In September 2023, the complainant began receiving unsolicited calls from unknown persons making sexually explicit remarks and claiming that her profile was listed on online forums advertising escort services.In October 2023, Ms. Kavya Sharma discovered a fake email ID and social media accounts created in her name using her photographs, which had been unlawfully extracted from her private account.
• Obscene messages and sexually explicit content were posted on multiple online discussion forums falsely portraying her as soliciting sexual services. Her phone number and residential locality were also disclosed.Morphed images of the complainant were circulated through encrypted messaging platforms, causing severe mental trauma, reputational harm, and social ostracisation.
• The complainant alleged that her personal data, including photographs, contact details, and identifiers, were processed without consent, violating her right to informational privacy and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.The accused was alleged to have unlawfully retained and misused personal data obtained during matrimonial negotiations, amounting to identity theft and violation of privacy under the Information Technology Act, 2000.
• Investigation revealed that several obscene posts were hosted on platforms whose servers were located outside India, including jurisdictions in Southeast Asia and Europe.The fake email account impersonating the complainant was registered with a foreign-based service provider governed by foreign data protection laws.The Cyber Crime Cell invoked Section 75 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, asserting extraterritorial jurisdiction on the ground that the victim was located in India and the harm occurred within Indian territory.The accused contested jurisdiction, arguing that Indian courts lacked authority over foreign intermediaries and that evidence obtained without compliance with international data protection standards was inadmissible.
• On 5 January 2024, Ms. Kavya Sharma lodged a formal complaint before the Cyber Crime Cell, Madho Pradesh.Search and seizure were conducted at the accused’s residence, and his laptop, mobile phones, and external storage devices were seized pursuant to a warrant.Forensic analysis revealed deleted folders containing draft obscene messages, morphed images, and browser history linking the accused to the fake accounts.The accused alleged violation of privacy, claiming that investigators accessed unrelated personal data, thereby breaching principles of data minimisation and due process.A certificate under Section 63(4)(c) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 was produced to authenticate electronic evidence, which the accused disputed.
• The Trial Court convicted the accused under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Information Technology Act, 2000.The Hon’ble High Court of Madho Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No. of 2025, upheld the conviction and sentence, holding that the electronic evidence was admissible and that Indian courts possessed jurisdiction despite foreign servers being involved.Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the courts below, the Petitioner has approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The Petitioner has challenged the impugned judgment on the grounds that the findings of the courts below suffer from errors of law, constitutional infirmities, and procedural violations, particularly with respect to: 

1. Admissibility and collection of electronic evidence
2. Extraterritorial jurisdiction under cyber laws
3. Violation of the right to privacy and due process
4. Proportionality of punishment

The Respondent State has opposed the petition, asserting that the conviction is lawful, evidence was properly obtained, and the State has a constitutional obligation to protect women from cybercrimes.
The matter now is laid before the bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indica. All laws pari materia to India shall apply.

ISSUES RAISED:

• Whether the electronic evidence relied upon by the prosecution is admissible before the court in compliance with the requirements of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023?
• Whether Supreme Court of Indica have the jurisdiction to adjudicate cyber offences involving foreign servers and intermediaries under Section 75 of the Information Technology Act, 2000?
• Whether the search, seizure, and forensic examination of the accused’s digital devices violated the accused’s fundamental right to privacy and due process under Article 21 of the Constitution of India?
• Whether the conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused by the courts below are legally sustainable and proportionate in light of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India?