You are on page 1of 30

GROUP - 15

RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW PUNJAB, PATIALA ______________________________________________________________________________

BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF WEST BENGAL AT CALCUTTA ______________________________________________________________________________

STUDENTS PRIVACY FORUM (SPF) - PETITIONER -

V.

PRESIDENCY COLLEGE, CALCUTTA - DEFENDANT ______________________________________________________________________________

W.P. (C) No.: ______/2011 ______________________________________________________________________________

Table of Contents___________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM FOR THE DEFENDANT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

_____________________________________________________________ _________________ INDEX


OF

AUTHORITIES II INDEX
OF

CASES III LIST


OF

ABBREVIATIONS...

IV STATEMENT
OF

JURISDICTION ...

V STATEMENT
OF

FACTS ...VI ISSUES RAISED..


VII

...............

i MEMORANDUM for DEFENDANT FOURTEENTH S.C. JAVALI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

Table of Contents___________________________________________________________ SUMMARY


OF

ARGUMENTS ...

..VIII _____________________________________________________________ _________________ BODY


OF

PLEADINGS..

1 _____________________________________________________________ _________________1. THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE STUDENTS PRIVACY FORUM IS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN THIS

COURT 1 2. THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF STUDENTS DOES NOT EXIST IN THE CAMPUS..6 3. THE INSTALLATION
OF

CCTVS IN THE CAMPUS CONSTITUTES A

REASONABLE RESTRICTION ON THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY11 _____________________________________________________________ ________________ PRAYER RELIEF.. X FOR

i MEMORANDUM for DEFENDANT FOURTEENTH S.C. JAVALI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

Table of Contents___________________________________________________________

i MEMORANDUM for DEFENDANT FOURTEENTH S.C. JAVALI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

Index of Authorities_____________________________________________________________

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES UGC ACT, 1956 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1950.

o UGC (INSTITUTIONS DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITIES) REGULATIONS, 2010 SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1860 RAGHAVAN COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS, 2007

MEMORANDUM for DEFENDANT

Pageii

Index of Authorities_____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM for DEFENDANT

Pageii

Index of Cases__________________________________________________________________

INDEX OF CASES

CHANDER MOHAN KHANNA V. NCERT SUKHDEV SINGH V. BHAGAT RAM R.D. SHETTY V. INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY SORE PRAKASH REKHI V. UNION OF INDIA VAISH DEGREE COLLEGE, SHAMLI AND OTHERS V. LAKSHMI NARAIN & ORS DEEPAK KUMAR BISWAS V. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS TEKRAJ VASANDHI ALIAS K.L. BASANDHI V. UNION OF INDIA THE UNIVERSITY OF MADRAS V. SHANTHA BAI AND ANR KHARAK SINGH V. STATE OF U.P M.P. SHARMA AND OTHERS V. SATISH CHANDRA, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE (DELHI) AND OTHERS R.R. GOPAL AND ANOTHER V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHER GOVIND V. STATE OF M.P ROE V. WADE

UNITED STATES V. KNOTTS

MEMORANDUM for DEFENDANT

Pageiii

Index of Cases__________________________________________________________________
X. V. HOSPITAL Z

MEMORANDUM for DEFENDANT

Pageiii

List of Abbreviations ____________________________________________________________

LIST OF ABBREVIATION

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.

Del Etc. ILR Mad Univ. no. SC SCC UGC M.P. U.P. Regulation(s) LIC ONGC HC AIR SCR Ors. W.P. (c) I.T. Ammdt. PUCL CCTV CSIR ICPS

Delhi Etcetera Indian Law Reports Madras University Number Supreme Court Supreme Court Cases University Grants Commission Madhya Pradesh Uttar Pradesh
UGC (Institutions Deemed to be Universities) Regulations, 2010

Life Insurance Corporation of India Oil and Natural Gas Corporation High Court All India Reporter Supreme Court Reports Others Writ Petition (Civil) Information Technology Amendment Peoples Union for Civil Liberties Closed Circuit Television Cameras Council of Scientific and Industrial Research Institute Of Constitutional and Parliamentary Studies.

MEMORANDUM for DEFENDANT

Pageiv

Statement of Jurisdiction__________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

With reference to the circumstances that have been presented in the instant case, the Defendant has moved the Honble Court due to the Petition for Writ filed against it by the Petitioners under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The Defendant most respectfully submits to the jurisdiction of the Honble Court.

MEMORANDUM for DEFENDANT

Pagev

Statement of Jurisdiction__________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS

THE

PRESTIGIOUS

PRESIDENCY COLLEGE

OF

CALCUTTA (A DEEMED MR. JOHN


TO STUDY AND

UNIVERSITY)

APPOINTED FAMOUS EDUCATIONIST

PROPOSE THE STEPS TO BE TAKEN FOR IMPROVING THE ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE AND STUDENT DISCIPLINE.

MR. JOHN

SUBMITTED HIS REPORT RECOMMENDING INSTALLATION OF IN THE

CLOSE

CIRCUIT TELEVISION CAMERAS (CCTV)


STUDENTS ACTIVITIES.

CAMPUS

TO MONITOR THE

THE GOVERNING COUNCIL


REGISTERED UNDER THE

OF

THE

PRESIDENCY COLLEGE (A

BODY

CALCUTTA SOCIETY REGISTRATION ACT, 1972) PRINCIPAL


OF THE

CONSIDERED THE REPORT IN CONSULTATION WITH THE

COLLEGE AND DECIDED TO ACCEPT THE ABOVE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INSTALLATION OF

CCTVS

IN THE

CAMPUS

WITH EFFECT FROM

X JULY 2011

AND CONNECT IT TO THE INTERNET.

STUDENTS

WHO WERE GETTING MONITORED BY THEIR PARENTS FORMED AN

ASSOCIATION CALLED

STUDENTS PRIVACY FORUM (SPF) AND

FILED A

WRIT Pagev

PETITION IN THE HIGH COURT SEEKING A WRIT OF MANDAMUS COMMANDING

MEMORANDUM for DEFENDANT

Statement of Jurisdiction__________________________________________________________
THE

GOVERNING COUNCIL

OF THE

DEFENDANT PRESIDENCY COLLEGE

TO

REMOVE THE

CCTVS INSTALLED IN THE CAMPUS.

MEMORANDUM for DEFENDANT

Pagev

Issues Raised___________________________________________________________________

ISSUES RAISED

I.

WHETHER , THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE?

II. WHETHER , THE STUDENTS HAVE ANY FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY IN THE CAMPUS?

III. IF YES, DOES NOT THE INSTALLATION OF CCTVS IN THE CAMPUS FOR ACHIEVING ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE AND STUDENT DISCIPLINE CONSTITUTE A REASONABLE

RESTRICTION ON THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY?

Page

vii

Summary of Arguments__________________________________________________________

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE STUDENTS PRIVACY FORUM IS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN THIS COURT

1.1. THE TERM STATE CANNOT BE EXTENDED TO EVERY AUTONOMOUS BODY 1.2. NO WRIT OF MANDAMUS CAN BE BROUGHT AGAINST THE MANAGEMENT OF THE COLLEGE 1.3. A WRIT CANNOT BE ISSUED AGAINST A SOCIETY OR TRUST RUNNING A COLLEGE OR AN INSTITUTION 1.4. NO CLEARANCE OF TESTS MENTIONED BY THE SUPREME COURT TO BE AN OTHER AUTHORITY. 1.5. UNIVERSITY NOT HELD TO BE A STATE BY THE COURTS.

2. THERE EXISTS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF STUDENTS IN THE CAMPUS 2.1 PRIVACY IS NOT A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT BUT A DERIVED RIGHT 2.2 RIGHT TO PRIVACY IN PUBLIC IS NOT PRESENT 2.3 RIGHT TO PRIVACY IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT
2.4 PRIVACY IN THE COLLEGE CAMPUS CANNOT BE CLAIMED AS IT HINDERS PUBLIC INTEREST

ON THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY

Page

ix

3. THE INSTALLATION OF CCTVS IN THE CAMPUS DOES CONSTITUTE A REASONABLE RESTRICTION

Summary of Arguments__________________________________________________________
3.1. 3.2. 3.3. 3.4. 3.5. 3.6. STUDENT DISCIPLINE IS TO BE ENSURED IN A COLLEGE OF SUCH HIGH ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE. THE INDIAN LAWS PROVIDES FOR RESTRICTION TO THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY MERE SURVEILLANCE IS NOT A VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY NO DEFAMATORY RECORDING IS BEING CONDUCTED LEGAL APPROVAL BEHIND THE DECISION DECISION WIDELY ACCEPTED AND REPLICATED AROUND THE COUNTRY AND THE WORLD

Page

ix

Body Of Pleadings______________________________________________________________

BODY OF PLEADINGS
1. THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE STUDENTS PRIVACY FORUM IS NOT

MAINTAINABLE IN THIS COURT

1.1.The term State cannot be extended to every autonomous body


1.1.1. It was held in the case of Chander Mohan Khanna V. NCERT1 by the Supreme

Court that Article 12 should not be stretched so as to bring in every autonomous body which has some nexus with the Government within the sweep of the expression "State". A wide enlargement of the meaning must be tempered by a wise limitation. It must not be lost sight of that in the modern concept of Welfare State; independent institution, corporation and agency are generally subject to State control. Through this judgment the SC clarified that mere performance of State functions does not make every organisation a state.
1.1.2. The Government Control of any organisation is also not a definite indication

whether an organisation is a state or not. This view was endorsed by the Supreme Court in the case of Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagat Ram2, R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority3 and Sore Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India4, where the SC stated that the powers, functions, finances and control of the Page15 government are some of the indicating factors to answer the question whether a
1 2

1991 SCALE (2) 1993 [1975] 1 SCC 421 3 1979]3 SCC 489 4 [1981] 1 SCC 449

Body Of Pleadings______________________________________________________________ body is "State" or not and are merely indicative and are by no means conclusive or clinching in any case. In the present case, the College does not perform a state function and also does not satisfy the other criteria for qualification as a state.

1.2.No writ of Mandamus can be brought against the Management of the College
1.2.1. A writ of Mandamus cannot be issued against the Governing Council of the

Presidency College5 as it is not the competent authority to answer any legal proceedings against the College. The Presidency College is a Deemed University and is bound by the provisions of the UGC [Institutions Deemed to be Universities] Regulations, 2010. Regulation No. 24.0 (i) of the given regulations clearly mentions that ....the person in whose name the institution Deemed to be University may sue or be sued shall be the Registrar...
1.2.2. Further, it is clearly mentioned under Regulation No. 24.0 (ii) that ...No suit or

legal proceedings shall lie against the Central Government or the Commission or the institution Deemed to be University or an Officer of the institution Deemed to be University or a member of the authority of the institution Deemed to be University in respect of anything done or purported or intended to be done in pursuance of any of these Regulations. This shows that there can Page15 be no proceeding for a writ of Mandamus in the name of the college or the Governing Council of the College.
5

Para 6 of the Moot Problem seeking a Writ of Mandamus commanding the Governing Council of the Defendant Presidency College....

Body Of Pleadings______________________________________________________________
1.3.

A writ cannot be issued against a Society or Trust running a college or an

institution
1.3.1. A society or a trust which is running a private College cannot be held to be a

state. This has been held by the Supreme Court in the cases of Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shamli and Ors. v. Lakshmi Narain & Ors.6 and Deepak Kumar Biswas v. Director of Public Instructions7. The Supreme Court in the above cases has held that the management of private colleges cannot be considered a statutory body.
1.3.2. The Supreme Court has also held that a normal institution run by a registered

society cannot be held as a state. In the case of in Tekraj Vasandhi alias K.L. Basandhi v. Union of India8, it was held that the ICPS which was a registered society financed mostly by the Central Government and partly by gifts and donations from Indian and foreign agencies was not a state under the provisions of the Indian Constitution. The Court said: "In a Welfare State ................. Governmental control is very pervasive and touches all aspects of social existence........... A broad picture of the matter has to be taken and a discerning mind has to be applied keeping the realities and human experiences in view so as to reach a reasonable conclusion." Even in the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas Vs Indian Institute Of Chemical Biology And Othesr9 it was held that it was not a state even though it is a society. Further in the case of Council of Page15

6 7

[1976] 2 SCR 1006 [1987] 2 SCC 252 8 [1988]2 SCR 260 9 [2002]5 SCC 0111 SC

Body Of Pleadings______________________________________________________________ Scientific and Industrial Research10, CSIR which was sponsored and controlled by the Central Government and registered under the Societies Registration Act, was held as not a "State".
1.3.3. In the present case, the University is managed by a Registered Society/ Trust as

specified in Regulation No. 1 of UGC [Institutions Deemed to be Universities] Regulations, 2010 with negligible Government representation and hence is not a state under the Constitution of India. The trust has only one Government nominated representative and the rest of the members are selected by the promoting trust or are ex-officio positions.

1.4. No clearance of tests mentioned by the Supreme Court to be an other authority 1.4.1. The Supreme Court of India in the case of R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority11 had laid down certain tests to be an other authority under the Constitution. The tests are as follows(a) Entire Share Capital is owned or managed by the State- The property of

the University is in the name of the Institution and not the Government which shows that it is not owned or managed by the state.
(b) Enjoys monopoly status: The Deemed University does not enjoy a

monopoly status as there are numerous Deemed Universities which Page15 have been established.

10 11

Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India [(1975) 1 SCC 485]

1979 AIR 1628

Body Of Pleadings______________________________________________________________
(c) Department of Government is transferred to Corporation: In the present

situation, no Department of Government is transferred to the University. The education department to which the Defendant belongs is controlled by the Ministry of Human Resource Development. The Deemed University only in the present case plays only a small role in the duty of imparting education.
(d) Functional Character Governmental in Essence: The University does

not have a Governmental Functional Character as it cannot frame its own rules or laws and is bound by the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and The UGC [Institutions Deemed to be Universities] Regulations, 2010.

1.5. University not held to be a State by the Courts 1.5.1. The Universities have not held to be a state by the different Courts. The Madras High Court in the case of The University Of Madras vs Shantha Bai and Anr.12 has held that a University is not a state and hence a writ was not maintainable. This decision was repeated in the case of University of Panjab v. K.G.R.C. Sharma13 where it was held that Panjab University was not a state. 1.5.2. In various U.S. Cases, like People Ex Rel Tinkoff v. North Western University14 and North Western University v. People15, it has been clearly stated that a University
is not a state.
12 13

AIR 1954 Mad 67 AIR 1966 P H 34 14 (1948) 93 Law Ed. 383 (J) 15 (1879) 25 Law Ed. 387 (K)

Page15

Body Of Pleadings______________________________________________________________ 1.5.3. The Madras High Court in the case of The University Of Madras vs Shantha Bai And Anr had introduced the concept of ejusdem generis which meant that the decision extended to all institutions in similar cases which means that in the present scenario, the Presidency College which is a Deemed University can be not held as a state.

2. THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF STUDENTS DOES NOT EXIST

IN THE CAMPUS

2.1.Privacy is not a fundamental right but a derived right


2.1.1. The framers of the Constitution as well as the contemporary law-makers and

the scholars till date have not felt the need to include Right to Privacy as a Fundamental right and this clearly indicates that the right to privacy does not yet qualify to be in the exclusive range of fundamental rights. It was held in the case of Kharak Singh v. State of U.P.16, that the right to privacy is not a guaranteed right in India. It was held in the case of M.P. Sharma and Others v. Satish Chandra, District Magistrate (Delhi) and Others17 that When the constitution makers have thought fit not to subject such regulation to constitutional limitation by recognition of a fundamental right to privacy analogous, to the American 4th Amendment, we have no justification to import it into a totally different fundamental right, by some process of strain construction. Page15

16 17

AIR 1963 SC 1295 AIR 1954 SC 300

Body Of Pleadings______________________________________________________________
2.1.2. However, the Indian Courts have carved out an implied right to privacy in the

guise of personal liberty which is protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The same was also held in the case of R.R. Gopal and another v. State of Tamil Nadu and others18.
2.1.3. This right to personal liberty is however subject to limitations and is specified

under Article 21 under which the right is said to have emanated. The rights can be restricted under a valid legal sanction. Here, the decision has been made by the Governing Council which is the highest decision making authority as per Regulation No. 5.4 of the UGC (Institutions Deemed to be Universities)
Regulations, 2010 under which it functions.

2.2.Right to privacy in public is not present


2.2.1. It was held in a U.S. Case of United States v. Knotts
19

that there exists no right to

privacy in a public place. This view was also held by the Supreme Court in the case of Govind v. State of M.P.20 that the right to privacy is not absolute. In the given situation, the place in question is a Deemed University where thousands of students are present within a close proximity and live and interact with each other. In such a situation, an expectation of privacy is highly unreasonable.

2.3.Right to privacy is not an absolute right Page15

18 19

AIR 1995 SC 264 468 U.S. 276 (1983) 20 1975 2 SCC 148

Body Of Pleadings______________________________________________________________ 2.3.1. Right to Privacy is not an absolute but a limited right. There is no provision in the Indian Constitution which explicitly mentioned the Right to privacy, but the Indian Courts have derived the Right to privacy under Article 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution and the Directive Principles of State Policy. However, the Courts continue to maintain that the Right to Privacy is not an absolute but a limited right which may be subject to restrictions from the state21 and competent authorities from the State or procedures established by a law. This is also mentioned in the Indian constitution and can be found in the following articlesa) Article 19(1) (a) stipulates that All citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression. However this is qualified by Article 19(2) , 19 (3), 19 (4) 19 (5) and 19 (6) which states that this will not affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of Court, defamation or incitement to an offence. Thus the Freedom of Expression guaranteed by Article 19(1) (a) is not absolute, but a qualified right that is susceptible, under the Constitutional scheme, to being curtailed under specified conditions. The exceptions specified in 19 (2) - (5) if considered in the present situation where the surveillance is being conducted in the college premises satisfies a number of the given conditions. Here, public order maintenance and security of public are the conditions fulfilled and are of utmost interest due the new aspect of prevention of college violence which has evolved after the Virginia Tech22 shootings and other cases of college violence. Page15

21 22

Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India, AIR 1960 SC 544 Report of the Virginia Tech Review Panel retrieved from http://www.governor.virginia.gov/TempContent/techPanelReport.cfm . Last visited on 10-10-2011.

Body Of Pleadings______________________________________________________________ b) In Article 21, the words except according to a procedure established by law clearly specify that a legal restriction to the right is completely valid. This has also been held in the Case of Govind vs. State of M.P.23, where it was confirmed by the Honble Supreme Court of India that the Right to privacy is not an absolute Right and accepted it as a limited right.

2.4.Privacy in the college campus cannot be claimed as it hinders public interest 2.4.1. The Supreme Court of India in the case of X vs. Hospital Z 24 has held that "As one of the basic Human Rights, the right of privacy is not treated as absolute and is subject to such action as may be lawfully taken for the prevention of crime or disorder or protection of health or morals or protections of rights and freedoms of others". The Court has referred to the US case, Roe vs. Wade25 and European Convention on Human Rights to come to this conclusion. 2.4.2. The college campus to which the present case relates is a public area which is frequented by hundreds of people around the day. The responsibility of the college authorities essentially relates to ensuring the security of all the persons concerned. In such a scenario, the right of privacy if any can be violated in the interest of public security. Numerous incidents of violence in college campuses and terrorist activities have increased the need for surveillance. Such

surveillance has been recommended by the Delhi Police and the UGC (Raghavan Committee). Also, CCTV cameras have been installed in College campuses around the globe but no instance of privacy violation has been accepted.
23 24

AIR 1975 SC 1385 (1998) 8 SCC 296 25 410 US 113

Page15

Body Of Pleadings______________________________________________________________ 2.4.3. The Raghavan Committee guidelines for the Prevention of Ragging mention that an adequate watch should be kept by the College authorities to prevent incidents of violence or ragging in the college premises. The UGC AntiRagging Guidelines also prescribe strict measures such as surprise checks in rooms to tackle ragging. If the act of mere surveillance is held to be a violation of privacy then, the judgment and orders of the Honble Supreme Court of India will be impossible to implement.

3. THE INSTALLATION OF CCTVs IN THE CAMPUS DOES CONSTITUTE A REASONABLE RESTRICTION ON THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY

The decision of the college authorities to install CCTV Cameras is absolutely reasonable and constitutes a valid restriction to the Right to Privacy. The decision of the college authorities to implement the decision for academic excellence and student discipline can be well justified and expressed as follows:-

3.1.

Student discipline and academic excellence is to be ensured in a College of

such high standing as a Deemed University.


3.1.1. The Presidency College has acquired the status of a Deemed University due to its

academic excellence. The college is under a responsibility to ensure this status. The Page15 need for maintaining academic excellence is mentioned in Rule 11 of the UGC [Institutions Deemed to be Universities] Regulations, 2010 which states that An institution Deemed to be University shall maintain standards, higher than the

Body Of Pleadings______________________________________________________________ minimum, of instruction, academic and physical infrastructure, qualifications of teachers, etc. as prescribed for college level institutions. To maintain this standard the University can ensure reasonable restrictions to ensure academic excellence which is the prime goal of its existence.

3.2.

The Indian laws provides for Restriction to the Right to Privacy

3.2.1. The Right to Privacy although not mentioned in the Constitution of India is held to be

emanating from the decisions of the Honble Supreme Court of India. The laws prevalent in India have specified that there can be reasonable exceptions to the Right to Privacy.
3.2.2. It is frequently contended that the Right to Privacy has emanated from Article 19 of the

Indian Constitution. However, Article 19 (2) to (5) of the Indian Constitution provides for exceptions to the rights given under Article 19 (1). The exceptions which are satisfied in the given case as follows:a) Security of the State: College campuses have come under siege in the past due to various

terrorist and anti-social elements. The recent Virginia Tech Shootings in the USA and the Beslan School Siege in Russia are examples where the security of the state and its citizens were under threat due to violence and terrorist action in the college campus. In many incidents, the students of the college itself had participated in the firings. Page15

Body Of Pleadings______________________________________________________________ To prevent such happenings, the college authorities are under an absolute right to install CCTV cameras to ensure adequate protection and discipline in the campus.
b) Incitement to an offence: The College authorities are under an absolute right to prevent an

incitement an offence in the campus. In the absence of an adequate surveillance mechanism in the college campus there might be incidents which can incite an offence such as Ragging or bullying. To prevent such incidents, the college authorities are under an absolute privilege to ensure adequate surveillance of the students.
c) Decency or Morality: The College authorities are within their right to undertake measures

to ensure that the basic standards of decency or morality are maintained within the college campus. The maintenance of decency or morality would fall under the basic aim to ensure academic excellence and discipline for which the Deemed University has been established.
d) Public Order: The College authorities are under a reasonable right to safeguard the public

order in the campus by undertaking adequate surveillance measures. Such measures have been undertaken in colleges around the globe and Presidency College is no exception.

3.3.

Mere Surveillance is not a violation of the Right to Privacy

3.3.1. The Supreme Court of India in its various decisions has also upheld the right to a

reasonable restriction on the Right to Privacy. In the case of Kharak Singh v. State of U.P26, the Supreme Court has held that the infringement of freedom guaranteed under
26

AIR 1963 SC 1295

Page15

Body Of Pleadings______________________________________________________________ Article 19 (1) (d) of the Constitution and the attempt to ascertain the movements of an individual was not an infringement of any fundamental right.

3.4.No defamatory recording is being conducted


3.4.1. In the present circumstances, the recording being conducted in good faith and is being

transmitted to the internet and is not of a defamatory nature. The acts which are being transmitted are all truth which is a valid defense. Here the act of CCTV recording is being done in good faith with an aim for academic excellence and maintenance of discipline only.

3.5.Legal approval behind the decision


3.5.1. The act of CCTV recording has been undertaken due to stringent recommendations of

the UGC and the Raghavan Committee which had been established by the Supreme Court to look into the issue of Ragging in the country. The Report suggests the use of CCTV cameras to check ragging and has been accepted by the Supreme Court.
3.5.2. The use of CCTV cameras has also been recommended by the Delhi Police to ensure

campus security and protection. They have recognized it as a valuable tool to prevent crime.
3.5.3. The decision has also been approved by the Governing Committee which is the highest

decision making body as per the UGC [Institutions Deemed to be Universities] Regulations, 2010 by which the college is bound.

Page15

Body Of Pleadings______________________________________________________________

3.6.Decision widely accepted and replicated around the country and the world
3.6.1. The decision to install CCTV cameras is not a unique decision in the sense that CCTV

camera has been long installed in college campuses around the world. Colleges like Delhi University, Aligarh Muslim University, Panjab University and Christ University, Bangalore have installed CCTV camera in the college premises.
3.6.2. Around the world CCTV cameras have been installed in premier Universities like

Harvard University and MIT. A case study conducted in Harvard stated that such a system both in crime control and general campus system would outweigh the costs.27 3.6.3. It can be seen that since, such a system is already running smoothly in numerous places around the country, no special exception should arise in this particular college.

It can be thus clearly seen that the CCTV cameras create no restriction on the right to Privacy and the decision of installing the cameras keeping in view the location and prevailing situation is absolutely justified and in the best interest of the students.

27

Jana Lepon and Rachel Popkin, A Case Study of CCTV at Harvard, Retrieved from http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/cs199r/fp/JanaRachel.pdf . Last visited on 10-10-2011.

Page15

Prayer for Relief________________________________________________________________ PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore in the light of above facts stated, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the Court may be pleased to cancel the application for the Writ petition and adjudge and declare:

I. That no Writ of Mandamus could be brought against the college.

II. That the decision of the management to install the CCTV did not violate the rights of the students.

III. That the decision was valid to serve the aim of the college to promote academic excellence and student discipline.

The Court may also be pleased to pass any other order in the light of justice, equity and good conscience.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

At: Calcutta Date: X October, 2011

Counsels on behalf of Defendants X__________________________

MEMORANDUM for DEFENDANT

Page