Appel Ant

INTRA DEPARMENT MOOT COMPETITION, 2018 B-63 (2)
IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT
OF
PRAAKRIT
APPEAL NO. __/2018
[UNDER ARTICLE 134 R/W ARTICLE 32 OF THE PRAAKRIT CONSTITUTION]
--IN THE CLUBBED MATTER OF—
STATE OF SAURAMASHTHA & ANR. ………… APPELLANT
VERSUS
NGO VASUDEV KUTUMBKUM & ORS. ……….. RESPONDENTS
INTRA DEPARTMENT MOOT COMPETITION, 2018
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS
-DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS-

1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVATIONS ................................................................................................. 2
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................. 4
STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................................... 7
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ...................................................................................... 8
ISSUES RAISED .................................................................................................................. 9
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ......................................................................................... 10
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ............................................................................................. 12
1. WHETHER OR NOT WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FILED BY NGO VASUDEV

KUTUMBKUM MAINTAINABLE? .............................................................................. 12
2. WHETHER OR NOT KASHI GAROOR HAS LOCUS STANDI IN THE CASE IN

HAND? ........................................................................................................................... 16
3. WHETHER OR NOT RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN EXIST IN STATE OF

PRAAKRIT? ................................................................................................................... 19
4. WHETHER OR NOT HIGH COURT ERRED IN QUASHING JUSTICE AMAR

SHERGILL’S FIR UNDER SECTION 482 OF CRPC? .................................................. 23
4.1. THE INHERENT POWER TO QUASH FIR ABUSED BY THE HIGH COURT
OF SAURAMASHTHA .............................................................................................. 23
PRAYER ............................................................................................................................ 25

2
LIST OF ABBREVATIONS
Abbreviation Expansions
SC Supreme Court
HC High Court
UN United Nation
AIR All India Report
SCC Supreme Court Cases
STPS Sombroro Thermal Power Station
RTBF Right To Be Forgotten
PIL Public Interest Litigation
CPP Communist Party of Praakrit
PPC Praakrtin Penal Code
J. Judge
Viz. Namely
UAPA Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act
ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
HR Human Rights
NHRC National Human Rights Commission
Ss. Sections
i.e. That is
& And
Etc. Etcetera
r/w Read with
u/s Under section
u/a Under article
v. Versus
Ors. Others
Anr. Another

3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
1. BOOKS REFERRED:
 Dr. U.P.D. Kesari, Administrative Law, 20th edition (2014), Central Law
Publications, Allahabad.
 Professor S.N. Misra, Indian Penal Code, 20th edition (2016), Central Law
Publications, Allahabad.
 P.M. Bakshi, Public Interest Litigation, 3rd edition (2012), Ashoka Law House,
New Delhi.
 R.V. Kelkar, Criminal Procedure, 6th edition Rep. (2016), Eastern Book Company,
Lucknow.
 D. D Basu, Shorter Constitution of India”, 13th Ed., Rep.(2006), Wadhwa and
Company, Nagpur.
 Dr. J.J.R. Upadhyaya, Administrative Law, 7th ed. (2009), Central Law Agency,
Allahabad.
 Sampat Jain “Public Interest Litigation”, 2nd Ed.(2003), Deep and Deep
Publications, Delhi.
2. DICTIONARIES:
 A. G. Bryan, ‘Black’s Law Dictionary’, 9th Ed., 2009, West Group.
 Daniel Greenberg, ‘Strouds Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrases’, 7th Ed.
Sweet and Maxwell Co.
 P. Ramanatha., ‘Concise Law Dictionary’, 3rd Ed., Rep. 2006, Wadhwa, Nagpur
3. WEBSITES REFERRED:
 https://www.manupatra.com (browsed on 17/09/2018)
 https://www.scconline.com (browsed on 18/09/2018)
 https://www.india.gov.in/sites/upload_files/npi/files/coi_part_full.pdf
 http://jail.cg.gov.in/Prisons%20Act%201894.pdf
 http://www.lexusnexus.com/in/legal
 http://www.jstor.com

4
4. STATUTES:
 Indian Penal Code, 1860
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
 Constitution of India, 1950
 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
 Prisons Act, 1894
 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
5. CASES REFERRED:
 A.K. Gopalan v State of Madras
 Ashok Kumar Pandey v. The State of West Bengal
 Calcutta Gas Co. Ltd. V. State of West Bengal
 Chintamani Rao v. State Of M.P.
 Fitrat Raza Khan v. State of U.P.
 Google Spain v. AEPD and Mario Costeja Gonzalez
 Harijai Singh and Anr.; in Re: Vijay Kumar
 Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary
 Kanu Biswas v. State of W.B
 Kharak Singh case
 Manjula Sinha v. State of U.P
 Manoj Sharma v. State & ors
 Parbatbhai Aahir and others v. State of Gujrat and another
 Rajiv Singh v. Union of India
 Ram Jethmalani v. Union
 Ramsharan Autyanuprasi v. Union of India,
 Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Indian Express Newspaper Bombay (P) Ltd.
 S.P. Gupta v. Union of India
 Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Govt. of India v. Cricket
Association of Bengal,
 Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka
 State of U.P. v. Hari Singh Thakur

5
 State of U.P. v. Kamal Kishor Saini,

 Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar
 Union of India v. Paul Manickam
 Union of India v. Chaya Ghoshal
 Vasunathan v. The Registrar General

6
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Sequoia, an intellectual, having Doon school and oxford as his alma mater gets arrested in 2012
after attacks of STPS under the allegations of being a member of CPP as he is a believer of
Maoist rights. He was booked in 7 cases, acquitted in 3 already. Sequoia is being kept in
isolation. He sat on a hunger strike and followed it with a letter to NHRC about the atrocities
in jail. Chairman of NHRC supports Sequoia’s release. In contradiction NIA investigation
asserted that they have credible evidence against Sequoia. He being suffering from prostate
ailment, his lawyer demanded that trial be commenced expeditiously
Justice Amar Shergill a sexagenarian human right activist too got arrested for having links with
Sequoia and other Maoists. As being acutely active on social media, he posted on facebook his
views on Kiki new channel show of Sequoia’s letter. This stirred controversy and he got an
FIR lodged under Section 153A and 153B of the PPC. Media showed this post in bad taste viz.
challenge to constitution and promotion armed resurrection. Fearing that this impacts fair trial
Sequoia’s and other filed a petition for a gag order and SC ordered in favor but Kiki news
channel showed another one hour show on ancestral background of both. Thus, both filed for
violation of right to fair trial. The HC of Sauramashtha awarded damages and put permanent
injunction. The Kiki news channel appealed against the said order.
An NGO, Vasudev Kutumbkum, filed a writ of habeas corpus and claimed of a pattern as
arrests are made by plain clothed police and without warrant which lead to horrible
consequences like: delayed justice and prolonged imprisonment as charges are booked under
UAPA, 1967. The HC ordered release of all activists, quashed the FIR of Justice Amar Shergill
and sent a notice to law commission for rights of political prisoners.
Aggrieved by the order, the State appealed to SC and contended that detention of prisoner is
necessary in national interest. The expression of thought is intrinsically dangerous as these men
are intellectual and hold higher reputation, their words have a scintillating affect on the masses.
Respondents argued that their right to fair trial is violated and State should pay compensation.
Meanwhile, Mr. Kashi Garoor filed a PIL in Supreme Court praying to treat political prisoner
in accordance with UN provisions, the scrapping of Colonial Era Prisons Act (1894), FIR made
mandatory in case of encounters. The State is questioning the locus standi of Kashi Garoor in
the filed PIL. Supreme Court has clubbed the matter as it will further the interests of justice.

7
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT THAT APPELLANTS
UNDER THE ARTICLE 1341 READ WITH ARTICLE 322 OF THE PRAAKRIT
CONSTITUTION OF THE PRAAKRIT CONSTITUTION, HEREBY, PLEADS BEFORE
THE HON’BLE COURT TO CONSIDER OUR APPEAL.
1
134. (1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal
proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court—
(a) has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to death; or
(b) has withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any court subordinate to its authority and has in such trial
convicted the accused person and sentenced him to death; or
(c) [certifies under article 134A] that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court: Provided that an appeal
under sub-clause (c) shall lie subject to such provisions as may be made in that behalf under clause (1) of article
145 and to such conditions as the High Court may establish or require.
(2) Parliament may by law confer on the Supreme Court any further powers to entertain and hear appeals from
any judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India subject to
such conditions and limitations as may be specified in such law
2
32. (1) the right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights
conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of
habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the
enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2), Parliament may by
law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers
exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this
Constitution.

8
ISSUES RAISED
1) WHETHER OR NOT WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FILED BY NGO

VASUDEV KUTUMBKUM MAINTAINABLE?
2) WHETHER OR NOT KASHI GAROOR HAS LOCUS STANDI IN THE CASE
IN HAND?
3) WHETHER OR NOT RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN EXIST IN STATE OF
PRAAKRIT?
4) WHETHER OR NOT HIGH COURT OF SAURAMASHTHA ERRED IN
QUASHING JUSTICE AMAR SHERGILL’S FIR UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CRPC?

9
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. WHETHER OR NOT WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FILED BY NGO

The writ of habeas corpus as issued by the High Court of Sauramashtha is not maintainable
and High Court has erred in granted the writ. The writ of habeas corpus is issued when the
detention of the person is illegal and unlawful. But in the case at hand neither the detention
is illegal nor unlawful. The High Court failed to observe the gravity of charges against the
respondents. The respondents are in preventive detention taking into consideration the
national integrity and security.
2. WHETHER OR NOT KASHI GAROOR HAS LOCUS STANDI IN THE CASE

AT HAND?
The PIL file by Mr. Kashi Garoor has no locus standi. Being an opposition leader, he under
the cloak of PIL, is trying to settling scores with the ruling party. Mr. Kashi Garoor has
abused the purpose of law. Public interest litigation is filed for public at large and it must
not be converted to Publicity or Political interest litigation. Kashi Garoor has no sufficient
interest in the present case. Therefore, PIL must not be maintainable.

PRAAKRIT?
The right to be forgotten as pleaded by the respondents does not exist in Praakrit. The right
to be forgotten is a foreign concept and applying the same here will lead to chaos in the
legal system. Moreover, this right to be forgotten outweighs other fundamental rights like:
right to information. Therefore, the Supreme Court must revoke the permanent injunction
because no right to be forgotten was violated.
4. WHETHER OR NOT HIGH COURT OF SAURAMASHTHA ERRED IN

QUASHING JUSTICE AMAR SHERGILL’S FIR UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CRPC?
The High Court of Sauramashtha erred in quashing the FIR under Section 482 of CrPc. It
has abused its power by not letting the proceeding against Justice Amar Shergill to

10
continue. Justice Amar Shergill by his words tried to challenge the democratic system of
the country. He, by calling the lawmakers and politicians goondas, is mocking the people
of Praakrit who themselves had elected these politicians. He is posting, about the case
which is sub judice, at social platform which is accessed by innumerable and countless
people. A person who has no prior information about the case will form a faulty opinion
about the government. He is thus inciting and provoking the people of Praakrit to rebel
against the government. This will lead to breach of public peace and threat to sovereignty
and integrity of the country.

11
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. WHETHER OR NOT WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FILED BY NGO
1.1. THE HIGH COURT HAS ERRED IN ISSUING WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS ON
IMPROPER GROUNDS
1.1.1. It is most respectfully submitted that the writ of Habeas Corpus can be issued under
Article 226 of the Praakrit Constitution only on the ground if the detention of the
detenu is illegal and unlawful. The nature of the writ of habeas corpus has been
neatly summarized in Corpus Juris Secundum3 as follows: ‘The writ of habeas
corpus is a writ directed to the person detaining another, communicating him to
produce the body of the prisoners at a designated time and place, with the day and
cause of his caption and detention, to do, submit to, and receive whatsoever, the court
or judge awarding the writ shall consider in that behalf.’
1.1.2. The applicant must show a prima facie case of his unlawful detention 4. And in the
case of Union of India v. Paul Manickam5, it was stated that if detention order is
prima facie illegal, the Court has to issue the writ of habeas corpus. So, it is
apparently clear that the main purpose to issue the writ of habeas corpus by High
Court under the Article 226 is when the said detention is held unlawful or illegal as
reiterated in the abovementioned cases. However, in the present case, the detention
is not only lawful but preventive in nature.
1.1.3. It is submitted that preventive detention means detention of a person without trial
and conviction by a court, merely on the basis of suspicion or reasonable probability
in the mind of an executive authority that the detenu has the potential of committing
prejudicial act. Preventive detention has been regarded as sinister-looking feature
out of place in a democratic Constitution, necessarily designed to prevent the abuse
3
Vol. 39 at p.424, quoted by Subba Rao J. in (1967) 2 SCR 271
4
Union of India v. Chaya Ghoshal AIR 2005 SC 428
5
(2003) 8 SCC 342

12
of freedom by anti-social and subversive elements which might imperil the national
welfare6.
1.2.THE DETENTION IS NOT ONLY LAWFUL BUT PREVENTIVE IN NATURE

1.2.1. It is most respectfully submitted that in Fitrat Raza Khan v. State of U.P.7, it was
held by the Apex Court that the past conduct or antecedent history of a person can
appropriately be taken into account in making a detention order. It is usually from
prior events showing tendencies or inclinations of a man that an inference can be
drawn whether he is likely in the future to act in a manner prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order. In the present case, Sequoia has been an active part of
the said party. The CPP was banned on 22 June, 2011 and he still was an active
member of the organization as revealed by the NIA investigation. It was also
disclosed that he was present in those meeting where bombing, which took place in
the STPS case, was discussed. It is a grave breach of national security as an
intellectual like Sequoia has not only joined the banned organization but also
supported their wrongful acts. On the basis of his past acts, he along with other
political prisoners having similar ideology must be preventively detained.
1.2.2. Whether an act relates to law and order to public order depends upon the effect of
the act on the life of the community or in other words the reach and effect and
potentiality of the act if so put as to disturb or dislocate the even tempo of the life of
the community. It will be an act which will affect public order.8 As mentioned in the
facts, Sequoia had graduated from London and completed his PhD from Oxford
University, one of the most renowned institution in the world. Since, he is an
intellectual and holds a higher reputation in the society, his words will have a
scintillating effect on the rural masses of Sauramashtha.
1.2.3. It is contended that public order is what the French call ‘order publique’ and
something more than ordinary maintenance of law and order. The test to be adopted
in determining whether an act affects law and order of the public order is: Does it
6
A.K. Gopalan v State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 27
7
(1982) 2 SCC 449: 1982 SCC (Cri) 472
8
State of U.P. v. Kamal Kishor Saini, (1988) 1 SCC 287 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 107(2)

13
lead to disturbance of the current life of the community so as to amount to a

disturbance of the public order or does it affect merely an individual leaving the
tranquility of the society undisturbed. 9 The High Court of Sauramashtha had
observed: ‘People living in regions of Sauramashtha have suffered grievously on
account of Maoists insurgency activities. The large tract of State of Sauramashtha
have been effected by Maoist activities is widely known’. Therefore, on account of
the observance by the High Court, Sequoia along with other political prisoners must
be detained preventively.
1.2.4. It is further submitted that the High Court should realize that there is no particular
virtue in quashing an order for detention. It may be fully justified and absolutely
necessary for the protection of the society. In State of U.P. v. Hari Singh Thakur10,
it was held that there has to be an objective approach taking into account all the
relevant circumstances and consideration in order to strike a balance between the
need to protect the community on the one hand and the need to preserve the liberty
of a citizen. The High Court of Sauramashtha failed to strike the said balance of
community and citizen. The NGO Vasudev Kutumbkum has not followed this
principle and the detention is not unlawful. The High Court of Sauramashtha,
therefore, by issuing the writ of habeas corpus failed to provide justice to society at
large.
1.3. THE HIGH COURT FAILED TO OBSERVE THE GRAVITY OF CHARGES

AGAINST THE PRISONERS
1.3.1. It is submitted that the facts of the case in hand clearly states that in the incident of
2012, Naxals had attacked one Security Forces camp in the SOMBRORO Thermal
Power Station (STPS) police station area. By attacking such a secured and well
protected place, they clearly made a point that they fear no men and no law. In the
said incident, 6 persons were killed and countless were injured. It was planned and
executed by over 300 Naxals. The attack included bombing as well as firing too took
place. 300 people gathering with bombs and guns to attack clearly indicates they
were planning to cause the breach of national security. The High Court did not
9
Kanu Biswas v. State of W.B., (1972) 3 SCC 831 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 16
10
AIR 1987 SC 2080

14
contemplate these facts while releasing the prisoners. The attackers apparently and
clearly challenged the system.
1.3.2. It is further submitted that the investigation had been conducted by National
Investigation Agency. It has revealed that there is a credible evidence that he is an
active member of the party. Minutes of various meetings were disclosed where he
was present. The National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 clearly states that it can
investigate only those offences which are given in the Schedule of the Act and the
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 falls under the Schedule. 11
1.3.3. It is contended that Sequoia has been booked under several Ss. of Praakrit Penal
Code, for Murder and Rioting and under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act,
1967 particularly under Section 18 and Section 20. The High Court failed to
understand the gravity of offences Sequoia has been booked under They are
menacing, treacherous and threatening offences. So, the counsel prays that Sequoia
along with other prisoners should be rearrested and kept behind bars as Habeas
Corpus is not maintainable issued by the High Court of Sauramashtha. The detention
of such people is also in the collective interest of society.
11
THE NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY ACT, 2008 Section 2 (1) (f)

15
2. WHETHER OR NOT KASHI GAROOR HAS LOCUS STANDI IN THE CASE

IN HAND?
2.1. THERE IS NO SUFFICIENT INTEREST OF PETITIONER MR. KASHI GAROOR IN
PIL
2.1.1. It is humbly submitted that a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest
in the proceeding of the Public Interest Litigation will alone have a locus standi and
can approach the court under Article 32 of Praakrit Constitution to wipe out the
violation of Fundamental Rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but
not for personal gains or private profits or political motives or any oblique
consideration. When a person acquires locus standi, he has to have a person or
individual right which was violated or threatened to be violated. 12
2.1.2. In the present case, the facts of the case clearly states that Mr. Garoor is an opposition
leader. No fundamental right of Mr. Garoor has been violated and main motive
behind filing this frivolous petition is to target the State Government. It was stated
by Justice Bhagwati in the case of S.P. Gupta v. Union of India13 : ‘But we must
be careful to see that the member of the public, who approaches the court in cases of
this kind, is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private profit or political
motivation or other oblique consideration. The court must not allow its process to be
abused by politicians and others to delay legitimate administrative action or to gain
a political objective. Andre Rabie has warned that political pressure groups who
could not achieve their aims through the administrative processes and we might add,
through the political process, may try to use the courts to further their aims.’
2.1.3. This principle was reiterated by Justice Pandian in the case of Janata Dal v. H.S.
Chowdhary14, as under: ‘It is thus clear that only a person acting bona fide and
having sufficient interest in the proceeding of Public Interest Litigation will alone
have a locus standi and can approach the court to wipe out the tears of the poor and
needy, suffering from violation of their fundamental rights, but not a person for
12
Calcutta Gas Co. Ltd. V. State of West Bengal, AIR 1962 SC 1044
13
AIR 1982 SC 149
14
AIR 1993 SC 892

16
person gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration.

Similarly, a vexatious petition under the color of PIL brought before the court for
vindicating any personal grievance deserves rejection at the threshold.’
2.1.4. The principle was accepted and taken further in Rajiv Singh v. Union of India15 in
which Justice Lakshmanan held that PIL were not meant to advance political gain
and settle political scores under the guise of PIL. Public interest litigation should not
be ‘publicity interest litigation’ or ‘private interest litigation’ or ‘politics interest
litigation’; if not properly regulated and abuse averted it becomes a tools in
unscrupulous hands to release vendetta and wreck vengeance, as well. 16 In the instant
case, petition does not seek to advance any public right, rather, invocation of the
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as PIL is made keeping in background of the
political enmity, hence, the allegations made in the petition and in the context of the
case was wholly unjustified. Hence, it is humbly pleaded that, the petitioner has no
locus standi to file the petition and thus such petition filed before court on ground of
political enmity is liable to be rejected by court and is not maintainable.17
2.2. MR. KASHI GAROOR HAS ABUSED THE IMPERATIVE PURPOSE OF PIL.
2.2.1. It is further submitted that this weapon (public interest litigation) as a safeguard must
be utilized and invoked by the court with a great deal of circumspection and caution.
Where it appears that it is only a cloak to feed any ancient enmity or grudge, this
must not only be refused but also be discouraged. While it is the duty of the Supreme
Court to enforce fundamental rights, it is also a duty to ensure that this weapon under
Article 32 must not be misused or permitted to be misused.
2.2.2. The duty of the Supreme Court to discourage such frivolous petitions and to ensure
that the course of justice is not obstructed or polluted by unscrupulous litigants by
invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court for personal matters in the
15
2008 (2) JCR 171 Jhr
16
Ashok Kumar Pandey v. The State of West Bengal, AIR 2004 SC 280
17
Chintamani Rao v. State Of M.P, AIR 1951 SC 118

17
garb of PIL18. Thus, a person acting for personal gain or private profit or political
motive or any oblique consideration has no locus standi19.
2.2.3. The case in hand clearly depicts that Mr. Kashi Garoor under the cloak of PIL is
filing frivolous petition just to bring filth and dirt to the ruling party of the state. As
mentioned, if the fundamental rights of the person filing PIL are violated then only
he has the locus standi. Here, neither there was any infringement of the Fundamental
right of the petitioner nor the motive behind filing such PIL bona fide. Hence, the
counsel prays that Mr. Kashi Garoor has no locus standi and therefore, the said PIL
must be dismissed.
2.3.THE SUBJECT MATTER OF PIL IS VAGUE AND IMPRECISE.

2.3.1. Praakrit is only a signatory to the UN Convention against Torture and other Cruel
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The said treaty has not been
ratified till date.20 To apply an international treaty, it must first be ratified by the
State. It acts merely as a recommendations to the State and it is upon them to apply
the same or not. So, there is no obligation on part of State of Praakrit to make
standards which are recognized internationally according to UN convention. The
Colonial Era Praakrit Prisons Act, 1894 should be applicable as this Act is the
only Act governing the prisons and the said Act provides for the smooth functioning
of the prisons and inculcates the sense of discipline among the prisoners. So, instead
of scrapping this, it is in the interest of the State if this Act is applied throughout the
territory of Praakrit.
18
Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, (1991) 1 SCC 598: AIR 1991 SC 420: (1991) 1 SCR 5
19
Ramsharan Autyanuprasi v. Union of India, 1989 Supp (1) SCC 251: AIR 1989 SC 549: JT 1988 (4) SC 577.
20
http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/Report273.pdf page no. 4

18

PRAAKRIT?
3.1.THE RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN IS A FRENCH CONCEPT.
3.1.1. It is obsequiously submitted before the Hon’ble Court that in 2014 The Court of
Justice of European Union (CJEU) decided a landmark judgment in the case of
Google Spain v. AEPD and Mario Costeja Gonzalez21, which sparked heated
discussion on the future of search engines and personal data. Prior to this, the internet
was seen as a place of permanent memories. The etymological background of right
to be forgotten can be traced back in French jurisprudence droit d’oubli where the
right use to be known as Right to Oblivion and this right was utilized by offenders
who had served their sentence, to object the publication of conviction or about the
wrong committed by them in order to protect reputation among the society.
According to this right, any person cam ask to remove his or her information
permanently in order to protect his or her privacy from search engines like Google,
Yahoo or Bing.
3.1.2. This concept of right to be forgotten in Praakrit was first coined in the case Sri
Vasunathan v. The Registrar General22, in which it was held by the Karnataka
High Court that any internet search made in the public domain ought not to reflect
the petitioner’s daughter’s name in the body of judgment. However, it refrained from
making any changes in certified copy uploaded on High Court website.
3.1.3. It is submitted that the right to be forgotten (RTBF) is a foreign concept adopted by
western countries like: France and United Kingdom. It is pleaded before the Apex
Court that since the inception of the Constitution, the country has seen numerous
cases with regard to the right to privacy which is embodied in Article 21 of the
Praakrit Constitution23. It was first noted in the dissent of Kharak Singh case24 that
21
ECLI:EU:C:2014:317
22
2017 SCC Online Kar 424
23
The Constitution of Praakrit, 1950 Article 21: Right To Life
24
Kharak Singh v State of UP 1963 AIR 1295

19
privacy serves as an ingredient of personal liberty and is not in contravention of

Article 19.
3.2. THE RTBF JURISPRUDENCE OF EU IS IN CONTRAST TO PRAAKRIT

3.2.1. It is contended that in today’s socio-political condition it is imperative to understand
that a data protecting legislation mirroring the EU directives will not serve the needs
of our country. This is because, firstly, the privacy jurisprudence in Praakrit is starkly
different from EU. The EU in particular give greater importance to the concept of
‘individualism’ while we are inherently ‘collective’ society. Praakritians value both
the individual and social aspect of privacy entrenched in strong culture of trust.25
3.2.2. Secondly, mere acknowledgment of the fact that RTBF exists doesn’t make the
stance of the judiciary concrete. There is no implication that the State will now look
at its as forthcoming legislative requirement. Through the years, various bills
regarding privacy have been pending before the houses of the Parliament. However,
none of the act has been passed. Blind application of law of other countries will result
in poor enforcement by judiciary.
3.2.3. Thirdly, giving all powers to third parties to adjudicate on whether particular
information should be removed or not will undermine the role of the State. The third
parties will act as private administrative bodies even though they are profit making
organization. This might lead to obfuscation, thereby diminishing the right to
information26 which is crucial to Praakritian society.
3.2.4. Lastly, many countries in the EU are now lobbying to remove links from the global
domain in addition to the region specific domains. For instance, France is now asking
Google to remove particular links not only from google.fr but also from google.com,
which is an obstruction to other jurisdictions. At this juncture, Praakrit is in an
economically thriving position and this kind of hegemonic behavior can have great
repercussions on trade and development.
25
Subhajit Basu, ‘Policy-Making, Technology and Privacy in India’ 6 Indian J. L. & Tech (2010) 65, 88.
26
The Constitution of Praakrit , 1950 Article 19(1)(a)

20
3.3. THE RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN OUTWEIGHS OTHER FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

SUCH AS FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND RIGHT TO INFORMATION
3.3.1. It is most respectfully submitted that society runs on a balance of rights known as
‘balance of convenience’27. The right of one party is weighed against the rights of
another. If we are considering implementing this right then one must also consider
the balancing rights and duties too. It is submitted that first right it blows off is the
right to freedom of speech and expression28 which is quite a stronghold in Praakrit.
The freedom is essential for proper functioning of the democratic process. It has
been said that freedom of speech and expression is the mother of all the liberties. 29
So, applying RTBF violates freedom of speech and expression30 which is the most
imperative feature of a successful democracy
3.3.2. It is further pleaded that Apex Court in the case Ram Jethmalani v. Union31,
obeserved that right to information, that is, right to know is an intrinsic part of
freedom of speech and expression enshrined in Article 19(1)(a). In Reliance
Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Indian Express Newspaper Bombay (P) Ltd.32, the
Supreme Court held that the right to know is a necessary ingredient of participatory
democracy. Therefore, RTBF not only is in contravention to right to freedom of
expression but also violates right to information. For a country liker Praakrit, which
has history of class struggle and history of revolution against British for
independence, success of democracy is the premier motive for them.
3.3.3. It is submitted that the Supreme Court has expounded that the fundamental principle
behind the freedom of press is people’s right to know.33 Elaborating in the case Re:
Harijai Singh and Anr.; in Re: Vijay Kumar34, the Supreme Court opined: ‘The
27
Bikash Chandra Deb v. Vijaya Minerals Pvt. Ltd.; 2005 (1) CHN 582
28
The Constitution of Praakrit, Article 19(1)(a)
29
India Second Press Commission, Report of the Second Press Commission of India (Controller of Publications,
Volume I, 1982) 34-35
30
Supra note 26
31
(2011) 8 SCC 1
32
(1988) 4 SCC 592
33
Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Govt. of India v. Cricket Association of Bengal, AIR 1995
SC 1236, para 4
34
(1996) 6 SCC 466, para 10

21
primary function, therefore, of the press is to provide comprehensive and objective

information of all aspects of the country’s political, social, economic and cultural
life. It has an educative and mobilizing role to play.
3.3.4. It is prayed before the Hon’ble court that the injunction ordered by the High Court
is not proper. Right to be forgotten was pleaded by the respondents (Sequoia and
Justice Shergill) and it is proved above that there is no RTBF in Praakrit. Hence, it
is with utmost respect pleaded that permanent injunction order given by the High
Court of Sauramashtha be revoked.

22
4. WHETHER OR NOT HIGH COURT ERRED IN QUASHING JUSTICE AMAR

SHERGILL’S FIR UNDER SECTION 482 OF CRPC?
4.1. THE INHERENT POWER TO QUASH FIR ABUSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF
SAURAMASHTHA
4.1.1. It is most respectfully submitted before the Apex Court that in case of Parbatbhai
Aahir and others v. State of Gujrat and another35, it was held that Section 482 of
the CrPc is prefaced with an overriding provisions. The statute saves the inherent
power of the High Court, as a superior court, to make such orders as are necessary:
to prevent an abuse of the process of any court and otherwise to secure the ends of
justice. 36 The inherent power of High Courts under Section 482 CrPc has to be
exercised sparingly with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases. 37 In the case
of Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka 38, exercise of power under Section
482 CrPc is not the rule but an exception. Inherent powers of High Court should not
be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. 39
4.1.2. It is further submitted that in Manoj Sharma v. State & ors40, the Apex Court held
that where continuing with proceeding would be futility, quashing of FIR should not
be refused. It is contended that High Court of Sauramashtha by quashing FIR under
Section 482 of CrPc has abused its power. The inherent power must be used only
when there is an abuse of the process of any law and to secure the ends of justice.
However, in the present case, there is no such abuse to the process. Moreover,
respondents was booked under Section 153A and Section 153B of the Praakritian
Penal Code, 1860. The offences alleged to be committed by respondent (Justice
Amar Shergill) are heinous, grave and a threat to national integration. A person of
his stature will have more impact on the people.
4.1.3. It is further submitted that Justice Amar Shergill by his words is trying to challenge
the democratic system of the country. He, by calling the lawmakers and politicians
35
2017 SCC OnLine SC 1189
36
Ibid para 11
37
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal AIR 1992 SC 604
38
2008 Vol.3 SCC 753
39
Manjula Sinha v. State of U.P. AIR 2007 SC 4555. Also see Supra 12.
40
2008(3) CRIMES 377 (SC) at page 378

23
goondas, is mocking the people of Praakrit who themselves had elected these
politicians. He is posting, about the case which is sub judice, at social platform which
is accessed by innumerable and countless people. A person who has no prior
information about the case will form a faulty opinion about the government. He is
thus inciting and provoking the people of Praakrit to rebel against the government.
This will lead to breach of public peace and threat to sovereignty and integrity of the
country.
4.1.4. It is prayed before the Hon’ble Court that the quashing of FIR under Section 482 of
the CrPC by the High Court of Sauramashtha at a very pre-mature stage of
investigation is bad in eyes of law. The police has just filed an FIR and the
chargesheet is yet to be filed. The FIR is the initiation of the criminal procedure
which puts the machinery of criminal justice system in motion. The offences under
which Justice Amar Shergill had been booked were not only grave but a threat to
national sovereignty and integrity. The High Court by quashing the FIR has abused
its power under the Section 482 of the CrPC. Therefore, it is pleaded before the
Hon’ble Apex Court to order the re-arrest of Justice Amar Shergill so that proper
investigation can be carried out by the concerned authorities.

24
PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited,
it is most humbly prayed before this Hon’ble Supreme Court, that it may graciously be pleased
to-
1. Issue order of arrest of Sequoia and other political prisoners.

2. Dismiss the PIL filed by Kashi Garoor.
3. Revoke the permanent injunction of Kiki News channel.
4. Issue order to arrest Justice Amar Shergill.
And may pass any other order in favor of the Respondents which this Court may deem fit and
proper in the circumstances of the case.
All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.

25

Appel Ant

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

Appel Ant

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INTRA DEPARMENT MOOT COMPETITION, 2018 B-63 (2)

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT

APPEAL NO. __/2018

[UNDER ARTICLE 134 R/W ARTICLE 32 OF THE PRAAKRIT CONSTITUTION]

--IN THE CLUBBED MATTER OF—

STATE OF SAURAMASHTHA & ANR. ………… APPELLANT

NGO VASUDEV KUTUMBKUM & ORS. ……….. RESPONDENTS

INTRA DEPARTMENT MOOT COMPETITION, 2018

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

-DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS-

LIST OF ABBREVATIONS ................................................................................................. 2

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................. 4

STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................................... 7

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ...................................................................................... 8

ISSUES RAISED .................................................................................................................. 9

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ......................................................................................... 10

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ............................................................................................. 12

1. WHETHER OR NOT WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FILED BY NGO VASUDEV

2. WHETHER OR NOT KASHI GAROOR HAS LOCUS STANDI IN THE CASE IN

3. WHETHER OR NOT RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN EXIST IN STATE OF

4. WHETHER OR NOT HIGH COURT ERRED IN QUASHING JUSTICE AMAR

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

-DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS-

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

-DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS-

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

-DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS-

-DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS-

 State of U.P. v. Kamal Kishor Saini,

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

-DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS-

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

-DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS-

-DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS-

1) WHETHER OR NOT WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FILED BY NGO

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

-DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS-

1. WHETHER OR NOT WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FILED BY NGO

2. WHETHER OR NOT KASHI GAROOR HAS LOCUS STANDI IN THE CASE

3. WHETHER OR NOT RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN EXIST IN STATE OF

4. WHETHER OR NOT HIGH COURT OF SAURAMASHTHA ERRED IN

-DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS-

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

-DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS-

-DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS-

1.2.THE DETENTION IS NOT ONLY LAWFUL BUT PREVENTIVE IN NATURE

-DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS-

lead to disturbance of the current life of the community so as to amount to a

1.3. THE HIGH COURT FAILED TO OBSERVE THE GRAVITY OF CHARGES

-DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS-

-DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS-

2. WHETHER OR NOT KASHI GAROOR HAS LOCUS STANDI IN THE CASE

-DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS-

person gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration.

-DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS-

2.3.THE SUBJECT MATTER OF PIL IS VAGUE AND IMPRECISE.

-DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS-

3. WHETHER OR NOT RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN EXIST IN STATE OF

-DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS-

privacy serves as an ingredient of personal liberty and is not in contravention of

3.2. THE RTBF JURISPRUDENCE OF EU IS IN CONTRAST TO PRAAKRIT

-DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS-

3.3. THE RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN OUTWEIGHS OTHER FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

-DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS-