Page |1

3rd INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION BABU BANARASI DAS UNIVERSITY

TEAM CODE – T21

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

RAMAVTAR, VANDANA TIWARI AND ORS……………………………...PETITIONER

V.

UNION OF ARYAVRAT……………………………………………………RESPONDENT

BEFORE SUBMISSION TO HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS

COMPANION JUDGES OF

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF

INDIA

MEMORIAL ON BEFALF OF THE PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEFALF OF THE PETITIONER

 Page |2

3rd INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION BABU BANARASI DAS UNIVERSITY

TABLE OF CONTENT

 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS…………………………………………………………..
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………..................…………..
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………………………
 STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………......………………………….
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES……………………………………………………………..
 Whether the validity of UAPA Act is questionable or not?
 Whether the abrogation was necessary or not ?
 Whether are validity of RTI Act amendment is questionable or not?
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS……………………………………………………….
 ARGUMENT ADVANCED…………………………………..……………………….

MEMORIAL ON BEFALF OF THE PETITIONER

 Page |3

LIST OF ABRIVATION

A.I.R All India Reporter

All. Allahabad

Cal. Calcutta

Del. Delhi

Co. Company

Ed. Edition

Ltd Limited

I.C. Indian Cases

Mad. Madras

Ori. Orissa

P&H Punjab ad Haryana

S.C. Supreme Court

H.C. High Court

S.C.C Supreme Court Cases

UAPA Unlawful activities (Prevention) Act

Ors. others

Anr. Another

v. Versus

A.P. Andhra Pradesh

UOI Union Of India

MEMORIAL ON BEFALF OF THE PETITIONER

 Page |4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

MEMORIAL ON BEFALF OF THE PETITIONER

 Page |5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indigo has jurisdiction to hear the instant matter under
Article 32 of the Constitution of Aryavrat.
Article 32 of the Constitution of Aryavrat reads as:
Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part
(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 clause ( 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.

MEMORIAL ON BEFALF OF THE PETITIONER

 Page |6

STATEMENT OF FACT

1. Aryavrat is a federal republic, known to be largest democracy, densely populated

country, with vast cultural diversity being home to variety of religion, situated in
SouthEast Asia which before becoming Union of Aryavrat consisted of 565 princely
states ruled by kings but under the paramountcy of Imperial rulers, which ruled the
country for 250 years. Aryavrat had been able to secure independence after a long-
drawn struggle in 1957 but this independence was not free, it came at the cost of
partition of the Nation into two parts, that is, Aryavrat and Zakistan Despite funding,
Zakistan’seconomy keptfalling. On the contrary, Zakistan, in the past few years had
been condemned by International Community for rising infiltrations in the
neighbouring countries, harbouring terrorism and funding in the same, causing major
disturbance in regionsespecially in Aryavrat, particularly in Mashkir State.
2. The Constitution of Aryavrat is acknowledged as world’s lengthiest Constitution which
guaranteed sacrosanct Fundamental Rights to its citizens. The Constitution also
consisted of most debatable Article 370. Later, Article 35-A included, in the year of
1964, in the Constitution having stem in Article 370 then the Union government
shattered the Article 370 and 35A and people who raised their voice against it were
suffered by the Lathi Charge and in the mean while government introduced Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2019.
3. The amendments in Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 empowered the Central
Government to designate not only an organization but also an individual as terrorist.
This magnetized criticism from opposition and activists, in the amidst of the same, the
government also brought major amendments in Right to Information Act,2005,
hereinafter referred to as RTI Act, 2005, which also ignited fire of condemnation of
government and its amendments, for cracking down the spirit of the Act.
4. Mohd. Shahnawaz Arif, a common man, owned a small general store shop in a quite
place but he was arrested by authorities Mohd. Shahnawaz was mishandled by Police
Officials, even by higher authorities. Finally, Mohd. Latifi was compelled to file an RTI
for knowing charges, but his application was rejected by information officers on
grounds of security of States, which, for Mohd. Latifi, is dubious. Finally, at last after

MEMORIAL ON BEFALF OF THE PETITIONER

 Page |7

months of being detained the trial beganin Sessions Court. During the course of
proceedings, it was discovered that, NIA mistakenly took Mohd. Shahnawaz Arif
instead of Mohd. Shahnawaz Ahmed, even it also surfaced that information officer that
tried to help Mohd. Latifi was suddenly transferred. During trial validity of UAPA,
1967 was questioned. Later, suit for compensation was filed, for loss of reputation.
5. Seeing the rising rate of designation by government, to individuals as a terrorist, Mr.
Ramavtar preferred a PIL in Supreme Court of Aryavrat challenging the UAPA, 2019
on grounds of violation of Part-III of the Constitution of Aryavrat The petition filed by
Ramavtar contended that the amendments bought by Government. are unconstitutional
on the grounds that it provides an unbridled power to the Central Govt. to designate an
individual as terrorist, which has larger chances of being misused to suppress voices of
dissent and crackdown opposition, which contemplates an intrinsic value in a
democratic nation An Information Officer approached Vandana Tiwari, a public
enthusiast who filed a separate PIL in Supreme Court challenging the amendments
bought in RTI Act, 2005, as unconstitutional on grounds of the amendment being
violative to Part-III diluting the autonomy that would render the Act as a toothless dog
Meanwhile other matters, Ms. Somita Banerjee, an activist, filed petition challenging
the abrogation of Art. 370 as an ill-motivated move to suppress a particular community
and referred to it as ‘Constitutional Tragedy.
6. Contending the PIL, the government maintained its stand that, witnessing the constant
rising of separatism and civic unrest in the recent past, took the example of Mohd.
Imtiaz that it had become indispensable for the government to abrogate Art.370, which
according to government, had become the backbone for causing terrorism and regional
disturbances which also severely hampered the growth and development of the state.
Now when Art. 370 has been scrapped, temporary restrictions will be revoked,
development and investment will thrive. On matters being taken up in the Court, the
Court clubbed all the PIL matters and referred the summed-up case to the Constitutional
Bench for h

MEMORIAL ON BEFALF OF THE PETITIONER

 Page |8

STATEMENT OF ISSUE

I. Whether the validity of UAPA Act is questionable or not?

II. Whether the abrogation was necessary or not?
III. Whether are validity of Amendment in RTI Act 2005 is questionable or
not?

MEMORIAL ON BEFALF OF THE PETITIONER

 Page |9

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

1. Whether the validity of UAPA Act is questionable or not?

a) Amendment Act 2019 is unconstitutional.
b) Amendment Act 2019 ignores the detention rights of detune.
c) UAPA Act violates be fundamental rights of citizens.
2. Whether the abrogation was necessary or not?
a) Abrogation ignores the State protection against terrorism.
b) Abrogation may lead to conflict and riots.
3. Whether are validity of RTI Act amendment is questionable or not?
a) RTI amendment violates Article 19(1)(a) if Indian constitution.
b) RTI amendment ignores the objective of the Act.

MEMORIAL ON BEFALF OF THE PETITIONER

 P a g e | 10

ARGUMENT ADVANCED

ISSUE 1

1)WHETHER THE VALIDITY OF UAPA ACT IS QUESTIONABLE OR NOT?

Unlawful Activities (prevention) Amendment Act 2019 was passed by government in which
the central government to designate not only an organization but also an individual as terrorist.
This magnetized criticism from opposition and activists, in the amidst of the same1, which lead
to the violation of fundamental right, right to life and personal liberty and any law which
violates the fundamental right should be declared void ab initio2. Even though as if the whole
Act is not inconsistent to Fundamental rights but those provisions which are inconsistent must
not be enforced.3 In both circumstances validity of UAPA Act 2019 is questionable.

1.1 AMENDMENT ACT 2019 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Any law passed by legislature if violates the Part III of the Indian Constitution must be declared
unconstitutional and in this UAPA Amendment Act 2019 doesn’t declares the grounds of
detention & also black out the communication & does not allow the arrested person to contact
his council & it violates the fundamental rights given in Part III of the constitution and therefore
it is unconstitutional.

1.1.(i) ARTICLE 22 OF THE CONSTITUTION VIOLATES

As given under Article 22 (1) of the Constitution a person must get to know the grounds of
detention but in UAPA amendment act 2019 this right has been completely neglected which
resulted in detaining the innocent people like Shahnawaz Arif was detain instead of Shahnawaz
Ahmad he has to suffer a lot just because he didn’t know the grounds of detention.

1
Para 10 of moot preposition.
2
Deep chand vs State of U.P,AIR 1959 SC 648.
3
State of Gujrat vs Ambica Mills, AIR 1974 SC 1300.

MEMORIAL ON BEFALF OF THE PETITIONER

 P a g e | 11

1.1.(ii) ARTICLE 19(1) (A) OF THE CONSTITUTION VIOLATES

Right given under article 19(a) a person must get the freedom of speech of expression which
also include right to know the information but in UAPA amendment act 2019 the detained
person was not allowed to meeting , no phone calls and no legal services which violates his
right to be heard as he was not allowed to communicate to anyone and he cannot express his
innocence (as in case of Shahnawaz arif he was not allowed to defend himself and he can’t take
legal help which leads to suffer a false charge under UAPA 2019) If the order is passed by the
authority without providing the reasonable opportunity of being heard to the person affected
by it adversely will be invalid.4

1.2 AMENDMENT ACT 2019 IGNORES THE DETENTION RIGHTS OF DETENUE

In the amendment act 2019 the detained person was not allowed to know the ground of
detention which violates the fundamental rights under act 22(1) of the constitution which says
that the person must be informed as soon as possible the ground of the detention. The words
used in Article 22(1) are “as soon as may be” which means as nearly as is reasonable in the
circumstances of a particular case.5As in the case of Shahnawaz Arif his brother face a lot of
problems to know the grounds of detentions of his brother but he was not informed, he also file
RTI to know the charges but application for RTI was rejected by information officer. After the
proceeding starts it was discovered that NIA mistakenly took Moh. Arif instead of Moh.
Ahmad which leads for his loss of reputation. As regards the detention under any law providing
for preventive measures, clause (5) of the Article 22 provides that in such condition the making
of order for such detention must as soon as may be, communicate to the detenue the grounds
on which the order has been made and must give him opportunity of making a representation
against the order.6

1.3 UAPA ACT VIOLATES BE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF CITIZENS.

UAPA amendment act 2019 violates article 22(1), 19(1) and 19(1)(d), 21 of the constitution
which deals with the right to informed ;as soon as may be’ of ground of arrest, right to freedom
of speech of expression, freedom of movement, right to life and personal liberty respectively.

4
Harbans lal v. Commissioner,AIR 1994 SC 39 , National Central Co-operative Bank v. Ajay Kumar AIR 1995
Raj.15 35, Fateh Singh v. State of Rajasthan,(1968)SC[CA 1362/67 dt. 16(J2.1968]39
5
Tarapada De v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1951 SC 174
6
Tulsa Singh v. State of Haryana(1970)Lab. IC 1448

MEMORIAL ON BEFALF OF THE PETITIONER

 P a g e | 12

Article 22(1) is violated as Moh. Arif was not informed the grounds of arrest and after being
asked by his brother the officer didn’t disclose the charges and exploit him which is the
violation of fundamental rights of the citizens. As the words of article 22(1) ‘as soon as may
be’ means as nearly as is responsible in circumstances of a particular case.7

Article 19(1)(a) is violated as the person has right to know the information but in this case the
brother of Shahnawaz Arif, Mohd. Latif on being asked about the charges of his brother he was
mishandled by police officials, even by higher authorities. Finally, he filed an RTI for knowing
charges, but his application was rejected by info. Officer. Right to know news of information
regarding administration of the government is included in the freedom of press.8

Article 19(1)(d) is also violated as the detained person was not allow to move anywhere which
violates his right to freedom of movement. In my opinion the words “throughout the territory
of India” were used to stretch the ambit of the freedom of movement to the utmost extent to
which it could be guaranteed by our constitution.9

Article 21 was also violated as the nuisance created by the amendment Act in public on the
restriction on communication, movement affect the livelihood of the public. Article 21 includes
right to livelihood.10

7
Tarapeda De V. state of west Bengal, AIR 1951SC 174
8
Prabhu Dutt V. UOI AIR 1982 SC 6, Sheela Barse V. state of Maharashtra (1997) and SCC 347
9
Kazi & Ors V. C V. Jethwani AIR 1967 Bom 235,(1966)68 BOMLR 529
10
Olga tellis & Ors, 1986 AIR 180,1985 SCR Supl.(2) 51

MEMORIAL ON BEFALF OF THE PETITIONER

 P a g e | 13

ISSUE 2

2)WHETHER THE ABROGATION WAS NECESSARY OR NOT?

The state Mashkir after gaining independence in 1957 couldn’t be acceded properly due to
some geo-political circumstances. It was acceded by Aryavrat with some special conditions
like separate flag and separate constitution. The constitution of Aryavrat provides Article 370
which gives special conditions to Mashkir. In 1964 Article 35A was included in by president
order which provides “saving of laws with respect to permanent residents and their rights”.
After 60years of independence Article 370 and 35A was scrapped which lead to disturbance in
state of Mashkir. Due to scrapping of Article 370 and 35A people starts protesting against it
and it causes loss of many innocent life after seeing this worst condition it prima facie in the
court that this step by the government was injurious for the fundamental rights of Mashkir’s
citizen

2.1 ABROGATION IGNORES THE STATE PROTECTION AGAINST TERRORISM

Zakistan causing major disturbance in regions especially in Aryaurat, particularly in Maskir

state, being nearest to Zakiskan border because they want to accede Mashkir.To protect the
whole state (Aryavrat) from terrorism it is necessary to apply Article 370 so that peace can be
maintain.

Knowing the scrapping of act 370 by the central government fiery speeches against government
move where going on, innumerable youths, feeling loss of identity and betrayal, came on roads
passionately protesting against the move of government and to control them lathi charge was
ordered, which caused major injuries to some and few causalities, and several youths were
detained in dark packed room for many days, no meeting, no phones call no legal services were
provided. It violates Article 22(1) of the constitution which says that any person arrested under
ordinary law must be informed the grounds of arrest.

2.2ABROGATION MAY LEAD TO CONFLICT AND RIOTS.

MEMORIAL ON BEFALF OF THE PETITIONER

 P a g e | 14

Article 370 along with Article 35A defined that the Mashkir states residents live under a
separate set of laws, including those related to citizenship, ownership of property and
fundamental rights as compared to resident of other Indian states. The Petitioner Kumari Vijaya
lakshmi Jha seeking a declaration that article 370 was temporary in nature. She claimed before
the HC that article 370 was temporary provision that had lapsed with the dissolution of the
constituent Assembly in 1957.

The SC said article 370 of the constitution was not a temporary provision which grants special
status to the state Mashkir.11

Due to scrapping of article 370 the school, communications, press was blocked and it harm the
education of the children’s in Mashkir which is their fundamental right under act 21

The court observed that mention of ‘life and personal liberty’ in article 21 of the constitution
automatically implies some other rights, those are necessary for the full development of the
personality, though they are not enumerated in part III of the constitution education is one such
factor responsible for overall development of an individual and therefore, right to education is
integrated in article 21 of the constitution.12

11
SARFAESI case 2017
12
Mohini Jain V. state of Karnataka 1992 AIR 1858

MEMORIAL ON BEFALF OF THE PETITIONER

 P a g e | 15

ISSUE 3

3)WHETHER THE VALIDITY OF AMENDMENT IN RTI ACT 2005 IS

QUESTIONABLE OR NOT?

The Lok Sabha had passed the Right to Information (Amendment) Bill, 2019 on 22nd July. In
this amendment it was proposed in the right to information Act 2005 so as to provide that the
term of office of the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners and the
State Chief Information Commissioner and the State Information Commissioners, shall be such
as may be prescribed by the Central Government. Any law which violates fundamental right
under article 19 i.e. fundamental right to freedom must be declared unconstitutional.13 Any law
violating constitutional limitations on the power to legislate were equally unconstitutional and
unenforceable.14

3.1RTI AMENDMENT 2019 CREATE DEPENDENCY OF ACT ON CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT

The amendment in RTI act 2005 deals with the appointment of the information officer and their
salaries. The central government appoint the information officer and also decide their salaries
as it demand fit. All those things must be responsible for the biased decisions of the information
officer.

3.1.(i)THE INDEPENDENCY OF THE COMMISION LOST

The commission consist of information officer are appointed by the central government and
hence they are dependent upon the central government as LJP was the dominating party won
by 75% of state election. For this reason the commission cannot be given impartial and
unbiased decision.

3.1.(ii)DECISION UNDER UNDUE INFLUNCE

As defined in section 16(1)15Undue influence where the relations subsisting between the parties
is such that one of the parties is in a position to dominate the will of the other uses that position

13
P.Rami Reddy & Ors. Etc v. state of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. Etc 1988 AIR 1626, 1988 SCR
14
M.P.V. Sundararamier & Co v. The state of Andhra Pradesh & Ors 1958 AIR 468, 1958 SCR 1422
15
Indian contract Act 1872

MEMORIAL ON BEFALF OF THE PETITIONER

 P a g e | 16

to obtain an unfair advantage over the other16. Here the LJP was in dominating position and
can use his position to obtain unfair advantages over the other, the commission work under
undue influence so they cannot give proper decisions of the cases. The LJP suppress them for
its own benefits.

3.1.(iii)COMMISSION GOVERNED BY CPC

The RTI commission was governed by CPC i.e. it can be considered as a quasi-judicial
authority or judicial authority cannot work impartially until they are independent. Here the info.
Officer were under control of central government of under undue influence they cannot give
impartial and unbiased decision. It is necessary for proper working of an quasi judicial authority
that they must work independently, under any dependent body they can not work properly and
the decisions given by them were considered to be biased.

RTI amendment ignores the objective of the Act.

16
Allcard V. Skinner (1887)36 Ch,D 145

MEMORIAL ON BEFALF OF THE PETITIONER

 P a g e | 17

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the Issues Raised, Argument Advanced and Authorities Cited, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court may be pleased to:
1. Declare that Abrogation of Article 370 and 35A of Aryavrat Constitution is
unconstitutional.
2. Declare that UAPA Amendment Act 2019 is unconstitutuinal.
3. Declare that Right To Information Amendment Act 2019 is unconstitutional.
AND/OR
Pass any other order, direction or relief that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity
and Good Conscience.

For this act of kindness, the Appellants shall duty bound forever
pray.

Sd/-

(Counsel for the Petitioners)

MEMORIAL ON BEFALF OF THE PETITIONER