TEAM CODE: KGS506

SEVA MANDAL EDUCATION SOCIETY'S

SMT. KAMALABEN GAMBHIRCHAND

SHAH LAW SCHOOL, MUMBAI

5TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2020

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SCINDIA

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SCINDIA)

XYZ …………………………………PETITIONER
v.
UNION OF SCINDIA……………….RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

_______________________________________________________________
 KGS506

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ………………………………………3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ……………………………………….5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………7

STATEMENT OF FACTS……………………………………………8

STATEMENT OF ISSUES…………………………………………...10

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS……………………………………...11

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED…………………………………………14

I. THAT A SPECIAL INVESTIGATION PROBE IN THE MATTER OF THE

ALLEGED ENCOUNTER TO BE MONITORED BY A RETIRED SUPREME
COURT JUDGE SHOULD BE ALLOWED.
II. THAT A COMPENSATION OF RUPEES FIFTY LAKH EACH TO BE PAID BY
THE STATE OF KIVI TO THE FAMILIES OF THE FOUR ACCUSED IS IN
ORDER.
III. THAT THE PIL SEEKING STRINGENT ACTION AND DISMISSAL OF ALL
THE POLICEMEN INVOLVED IN EXTRA JUDICIAL KILLINGS SHOULD BE
GRANTED.
IV. THAT THE COURTS SHOULD ISSUE GUIDELINES TO ALL MEDIA
REGARDING THE REPORTING BROADCASTING, PUBLICATION OF
REPORTS PERTAINING TO SERIOUS CRIMES SUCH AS RAPES AND
MURDERS WHICH HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO INCITE VIOLENCE AND
CAUSE OUTRAGE AMONGST GENERAL PUBLIC.

PRAYERS………………………………………………………………….37

Memorial on behalf of Petitioner

 KGS506

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And

¶ Paragraph

AIR All India Reporter

Art. Article

Anr. Another

Co. Company

FIR First Information Report

CBI Central Bureau of Investigation

Govt. Government

Hon’ble Honourable

Ltd. Limited

M.P. Madhya Pradesh

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

No. Number

NHRC National Human Rights Commission

Ors. Others

PIL Public Interest Litigation

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

Memorial on behalf of Petitioner

 KGS506

SCR Supreme Court Reports

SLP Special Leave Petition

T.N. Tamil Nadu

U.P. Uttar Pradesh

UOI Union of India

v. Versus

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

A. CASES

1. Babu Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1978 SC 527

2. Barun Chandra Thakur v. Ryan A. Pinto AIR 2017 SC 5735
3. B.G. Varghese v. Union of India and ors. (2013) 11 SCC 525
4. D K Basu v. State of West Bengal AIR 1997 SC 610

Memorial on behalf of Petitioner

 KGS506

5. D. F. Marion v. Minnie Davis 55 American LR 171

6. Hasa Basumatary v. Union of India & Ors. 2009 (4) GLT 428
7. Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1994 SC 1349
8. Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1963 SC SC 1295
9. Kiran Bedi v. Committee of Inquiry 1989 SCR (1) 20
10. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 1978 SCR (2) 621
11. Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra. AIR 2012 SC 3565
12. Mukesh & Anr. v. State For NCT Of Delhi & Ors. 2017 (3) SCC 719
13. Murli Deora v. Union of India AIR 2002 SC 40
14. Prakash Kadam and ors. v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta and Anr. (2011) 6 SCC 189
15. PUCL v. State of Maharashtra 1983 SCR (1) 456
16. R.S. Sodhi Advocate V. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors 1994 AIR 38
17. State of Bihar v. Lal Krishna Advani AIR 2003 SC 3157 
18. State of Maharashtra v. Public Concern of Governance Trust AIR 1989 SC 714
19. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohd. Naim 1964 SCR (2) 365 
20. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration AIR 1978 SC 1675
21. Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat AIR 2006 SC 1367

B. CONSTITUTION AND STATUTES

1. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950

2. THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973
3. PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS ACT, 1993
4. BOMBAY POLICE ACT, 1951
5. INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872

C. JOURNALS REFERRED

1. ALL INDIA REPORTER

2. SUPREME COURT CASES
3. INDIAN LAW REPORTER
4. SUPREME COURT CASES

Memorial on behalf of Petitioner

 KGS506

D. DICTIONARIES REFERRED

1. Aiyer P.R., Advanced Law Lexicon, (3rd ed. 2005)

2. Garner B.A., Black’s Law Dictionary, (9th ed. 2009)
3. Grrenberg Daniel, stroud’s Judicial Dictionary of words and phrases, (4th ed.), Sweet
and Maxwell, Vol. 4
4. Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary, (7th ed. 2008)

E. WEBSITES

1. www.manupatrafast.com
2. www.scconline.in
3. www.lexisnexis.in

F. BOOKS REFERRED

1. M.P.Jain, Indian Constitutional law, (Lexi Nexis Publication, Seventh Edition, 2017)
2. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal’s, The Code Of Criminal Procedure (Lexi Nexis Publication,
Twenty-third Edition, 2020)
3. Dr. S.K. Kapoor, Human Rights Under International Law And Indian Law (Central
Law Agency, Eighteenth Edition, 2018)
4. Mahendra C. Jain, The Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 (Law Times Bombay, 2015)

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE RESPONDENT HAS APPROACHED THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF

SCINDIA UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SCINDIA.

ARTICLE 32 –

Memorial on behalf of Petitioner

 KGS506

32. 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

STATEMENTS OF FACTS

For the sake of brevity and convenience of this Hon’ble Supreme Court of Scindia the facts
of the present case are summarized as follows:

Memorial on behalf of Petitioner

 KGS506

1. A young media professional of 26 years of age was brutally raped and murdered on
27th of July 2018 in the Latvia City under province of Kivi. Her dead body was found
on 29th of July 2018 at Pashabad, one twenty kilometers away from the crime scene
under a bridge located along National highway number 6.

2. Aggressive reaction broke out from the public through various media platforms and
protests demanding justice which resultantly put up a lot of burden on the state police
department to deliver fair and speedy investigation at the earliest.

3. During investigation, the state police department came across the CCTV footage
installed at the toll booth which was approximately situated eighty kilometers away
from the crime scene and it clearly showed faces of all the four suspects who were
arrested. Further, statements of truck drivers who were seen in the footage were taken
into consideration to reconstruct the entire crime.

4. When all the four accused were taken to the crime scene on 4 th of August 2018 at
around 3.30 am, two of them attempted to escape police custody by disarming two
police constables and started firing at the police constables which ultimately led to an
encounter. Two of the accused died on the spot and other two were declared dead at
the hospital due to their critical injuries.

5. National Human Rights Commission of Scindia took suo-motu cognizance of the

encounter report alleging that proper procedure of law wasn’t followed and demanded
centralized special investigation team to investigate into the same.

6. Public Interest Litigation has been filed seeking such special investigation probe and
demand for paying compensation of rupees fifty lakhs to the family of each accused is
made. Further, PIL seeks stringent action against policemen involved in the encounter
and requests the court to issue guidelines regarding the reporting, broadcasting,
publication of such severe crimes to avoid violence and outrage amongst the general
public.

Memorial on behalf of Petitioner

 KGS506

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

I. WHETHER A SPECIAL INVESTIGATION PROBE IN THE MATTER OF THE

ALLEGED ENCOUNTER TO BE MONITORED BY A RETIRED SUPREME
COURT JUDGE SHOULD BE ALLOWED?

Memorial on behalf of Petitioner

 KGS506

II. WHETHER A COMPENSATION OF RUPEES FIFTY LAKH EACH TO BE PAID

BY THE STATE OF KIVI TO THE FAMILIES OF THE FOUR ACCUSED IS IN
ORDER?

III. WHETHER THE PIL SEEKING STRINGENT ACTION AND DISMISSAL OF ALL
THE POLICEMEN INVOLVED IN THE EXTRA JUDUCIAL KILLINGS SHOULD
BE GRANTED?

IV. WHETHER THIS COURT SHOULD ISSUE GUIDELINES TO ALL MEDIA

REGARDING THE REPORTING BROADCASTING, PUBLICATION OF REPORTS
PERTAINING TO SERIUOS CRIMES SUCH AS RAPE AND MURDERS WHICH
HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO INCITE VIOLENCE AND CAUSE OUTRAGE
AMONGST GENERAL PUBLIC?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. THAT A SPECIAL INVESTIGATION PROBE IN THE MATTER OF THE

ALLEGED ENCOUNTER TO BE MONITORED BY A RETIRED SUPREME
COURT JUDGE SHOULD BE ALLOWED.

Memorial on behalf of Petitioner

 KGS506

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Scindia that this is a
unique case of fake encounter carried out by police as a suo-moto action even without any
requisite permissions about the custody of accused persons. This action is unjustified and
erratic thereby leading to abuse of Powers conferred upon the Police by the Code of Criminal
Procedure as well as special laws and rules of the State legislation. The incident has sparked
nationwide outrage across Scindia and there is a lot of pressure built up due to the
interference of media houses in the investigation of Police and its outcome thereby harming
the due process of law and creating delay in the said process.

Due to the fake encounter people have no faith left in the police. Thus, there is an
urgent need for monitoring of the whole procedure followed by the police personnel and
other authorities to create a situation of transparency. As they say – Justice should not only be
done but also be seen to be done. This special monitoring by a retired Supreme Court Judge
may restore public faith in the justice system and satisfy the need for fair investigation in the
case.

2. THAT A COMPENSATION OF RUPEES FIFTY LAKH EACH TO BE PAID BY

THE STATE OF KIVI TO THE FAMILIES OF THE FOUR ACCUSED IS IN
ORDER

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Scindia that when a
human life is taken away there can be no replacement for the same. The person is a part of the
family and he may be the sole bread-earner and support of his family. Yet the State is liable
to compensate the loss done to the families of the four suspects. They were merely suspects
and not even accused in the case till pressure built up due to the intervention of the media,
public and an eminent parliamentarian.

Thus, compensation of Rupees Fifty Lakh each must be paid by the State of Kivi to
families of the four accused is in order. Compensation should be paid for the wrong done to
the suspects by killing them without any reasonable grounds and with unfair means. The
families of these accused have a suffered a huge loss since they have lost a member of their
family especially the parents have lost the only support of their old age. The government

Memorial on behalf of Petitioner

 KGS506

ought to compensate these extra-judicial killings since the police officials have abused their
powers and gone beyond the scope of their powers.

3. THAT THE PIL SEEKING STRINGENT ACTION AND DISMISSAL OF ALL

THE POLICEMEN INVOLVED IN EXTRA JUDICIAL KILLINGS SHOULD BE
GRANTED.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Scindia that the police
officials have got themselves involved in extra-judicial killings, commonly known as Fake
Encounters. This is absolute violation of rules and regulations to be followed by any police
official during the various stages of crime investigation, gathering of evidences, etc. to make
out, and a water tight case as demanded by the public, media and the ruling party. So also, the
encounter has led to absolute violation of the provisions of Constitution of the Land, where
Article 21 guarantees Right to Life as a Fundamental Human right enshrined upon every
citizen of the country.

These extra judicial killings are a perfect example of abuse of powers given to the
government authorities that adversely affect the due process of law, supremacy of law and
predominance of legal spirit. There is nothing called as Instant Justice in the statutes of the
land that was demanded by the public. The police officials are duty bound to follow rules and
regulations laid down for their daily course of work where they are not permitted to take law
in their own hands. Hence the PIL seeking stringent action and dismissal of all the policemen
involved in extra judicial killings should be granted to warn all the police officials from
misusing powers conferred upon them.

4. THAT THE COURTS SHOULD ISSUE GUIDELINES TO ALL MEDIA

REGARDING THE REPORTING BROADCASTING, PUBLICATION OF REPORTS
PERTAINING TO SERIOUS CRIMES SUCH AS RAPES AND MURDERS WHICH
HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO INCITE VIOLENCE AND CAUSE OUTRAGE
AMONGST GENERAL PUBLIC.

Memorial on behalf of Petitioner

 KGS506

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Scindia that the Courts
should issue guidelines to all media regarding the reporting broadcasting, publication of
reports pertaining to serious crimes such as rapes and murders which have the potential to
incite violence and cause outrage amongst general public as also warn them of unnecessary
exposure of trials, accused and victims leading to Media Trial. Such an action has the
potential of yielding extra judicial killing such as in this case in turn abusing the procedure
laid down in the Statute book (Code of Criminal Procedure) to be followed during the
investigation of any criminal matter.

Every media house must follow the concept of responsible journalism that requires
the media to deliver news and facts to the common public responsibly and with due care and
caution. Also, they should be careful, not to take outrageous steps and cook up their own
stories with lack of basic facts and issues of the matter especially in the case of criminal
matters as grievous as rape and murder.

It is very important that the media houses only deliver news as a third party and not
jump to conclusions themselves leading to media trials. Instigating the public and stirring the
sentiments of public at large through the medium of communication is unfair in itself. The
print and digital media should be extra cautious since news, videos, etc. may become viral
within a matter of few minutes or even seconds, building up pressure on the judges and
thereby impairing criminal jurisprudence and justice system.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. THAT A SPECIAL INVESTIGATION PROBE IN THE MATTER OF THE

ALLEGED ENCOUNTER TO BE MONITORED BY A RETIRED SUPREME
COURT JUDGE SHOULD BE ALLOWED.

Memorial on behalf of Petitioner

 KGS506

1) Immense of pressure from the media -

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme court of Scindia that online
users were left furious and were quick to blame the government for not having strict laws in
place that protected women against rape. Women’s safety in Scindia was a unanimous
concern among users. Not only women but all people throughout the country were raising
their voices against the bouts of how unsafe Scindia had become as a country for women. 

Hence, fake encounter killing was conducted only to divert the public reaction over
sensational gang rape and murder cases against innocent young girls and may be to protect
the real culprits. No one including the investigating agency like police has right to punish any
accused without due process of law. The Court alone after applying all the procedure and law
and affording an opportunity all the right of free and fair trial and hearing can impose
punishment of imprisonment or death sentence. Here the respondent police have become hero
in the public domain as they have killed the rapists.

2) If accused weren’t the real culprits, justice has been delayed 

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme court of Scindia that in the
matter of  Barun Chandra Thakur v. Ryan Augustine Pinto and ors, AIR 2017 SC 5735
Pradyuman Thakur  a student at Ryan International School, who was found murdered inside
the ground floor washroom under mysterious circumstances on 8 September 2017
in Gurgaon. Senior police officer Biren Singh stated that Ashok kumar, school's bus
conductor has murdered Pradyuman. However, Kumar later told the media through his
lawyer that he was forced to confess because of police torture techniques. Later, after the
efforts of the victim's parents, and intervention by the Supreme Court, the Central Bureau of
Investigation took over the probe of the case.

During investigation CBI arrested a class XI student aged 16 from Ryan International
School for the Thakur's murder. CBI said the boy killed Pradyuman to postpone an
examination and parents' meeting in the school. Juvenile Justice Board noted the accused was
mature enough to recognize the consequences of his actions and declared that the accused

Memorial on behalf of Petitioner

 KGS506

boy will be treated as an adult and undergo a regular trial in court. Special Child court
acquitted the bus driver Kumar as requested by CBI, since no evidence was found of his
involvement in any way in the murder and his confession was out of coercion. Hence, if CBI
had not taken over the investigation Ashok Kumar would have been held convicted and
punished but real culprit wouldn’t have been traced till date and delivering justice to an eight
year old would have become impossible.

All the authorities have been allocated with their responsibilities and duties
considering smooth functioning of entire judicial process but if any of such authorities start
acting beyond their powers it will disturb entire judicial and administration process. Proper
procedure needs to be followed. Moreover, rather than pandering in the alleged illegal killing
and supporting and glorifying the same, the State should devise a better procedure for speedy
disposal of such cases.

3) Guidelines issued by Supreme Court in case of death or grievous injury in police

encounters

The Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice R.M. Lodha and Justice Rohinton F.
Nariman, In “PUCL & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 1983 SCR (1) 456 in 2014
outlined a 16 point Guidelines to follow in case of death or grievous injury in police
encounters:

(1) Whenever the police is in receipt of any intelligence or tip-off regarding criminal
movements or activities pertaining to the commission of grave criminal offence, it shall be
reduced into writing in some form (preferably into case diary) or in some electronic form.
Such recording need not reveal details of the suspect or the location to which the party is
headed. If such intelligence or tip-off is received by a higher authority, the same may be
noted in some form without revealing details of the suspect or the location.

(2) If pursuant to the tip-off or receipt of any intelligence, as above, encounter takes place and
firearm is used by the police party and as a result of that, death occurs, an FIR to that effect
shall be registered and the same shall be forwarded to the court under Section 157 of the

Memorial on behalf of Petitioner

 KGS506

Code without any delay. While forwarding the report under section 157 of the code, the
procedure prescribed under Section 158 of the code shall be followed.

(3) An independent investigation into the incident/encounter shall be conducted by the CID
or police team of another police station under the supervision of a senior officer (at least a
level above the head of the police party engaged in the encounter). The team conducting
inquiry/ investigation shall, at a minimum, seek:

(a) To identify the victim, colour photographs of the victim should be taken;

(b) To recover and preserve evidentiary material, including blood-stained earth, hair, fibres
and threads, etc., related to the death;

(c) To identify scene witnesses with complete names, addresses and telephone numbers and
obtain their statements (including the statements of police personnel involved) concerning the
death;

(d) To determine the cause, manner, location (including preparation of rough sketch of
topography of the scene and, if possible, photo/video of the scene and any physical evidence)
and time of death as well as any pattern or practice that may have brought about the death;

(e) It must be ensured that intact fingerprints of deceased are sent for chemical analysis. Any
other fingerprints should be located, developed, lifted and sent for chemical analysis;

(f) Post-mortem must be conducted by two doctors in the district hospital, one of them, as far
as possible, should be in-charge/head of the district hospital. Post-mortem shall be video
graphed and preserved;

(g) Any evidence of weapons, such as guns, projectiles, bullets and cartridge cases, should be
taken and preserved. Wherever applicable, tests for gunshot residue and trace metal detection
should be performed.

(h) The cause of death should be found out, whether it was natural death, accidental death,
suicide or homicide.

Memorial on behalf of Petitioner

 KGS506

(4) A Magisterial inquiry under Section 176 of the Code must invariably be held in all cases
of death which occur in the course of police firing and a report thereof must be sent to
Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction under Section 190 of the Code.

(5) The involvement of NHRC is not necessary unless there is serious doubt about
independent and impartial investigation. However, the information of the incident without
any delay must be sent to NHRC or the State Human Rights Commission, as the case may be.

(6) The injured criminal/victim should be provided medical aid and his/her statement
recorded by the Magistrate or Medical Officer with certificate of fitness.

(7) It should be ensured that there is no delay in sending FIR, diary entries, pancha namas,
sketch, etc., to the concerned court.

(8) After full investigation into the incident, the report should be sent to the competent court
under Section 173 of the Code. The trial, pursuant to the charge sheet submitted by the
Investigating Officer, must be concluded expeditiously.

(9) In the event of death, the next of kin of the alleged criminal/victim must be informed at
the earliest.

(10) Six monthly statements of all cases where deaths have occurred in police firing must be
sent to NHRC by DGPs. It must be ensured that the six monthly statements reach to NHRC
by 15th day of January and July, respectively. The statements may be sent in the Following
format along with post mortem, inquest and, wherever available, the inquiry reports:

(i) Date and place of occurrence;

(ii) Police station, district;

(iii) Circumstances leading to deaths (a) self-defence in encounter (b) in the course of
dispersal of unlawful assembly (c) in the course of affecting arrest;

(iv) Brief facts of the incident;

(v) Criminal case number;

Memorial on behalf of Petitioner

 KGS506

(vi) Investigating agency;

(vii) Findings of the magisterial inquiry/inquiry by senior officers. (a) Disclosing, in

particular, names and designation of police officials, if found responsible for the death, and
(b) whether use of force was justified and action taken was lawful.

(11) If on the conclusion of investigation the materials/evidence having come on record show
that death had occurred by use of firearm amounting to offence under the IPC, disciplinary
action against such officer must be promptly initiated and he be placed under suspension.

(12) As regards compensation to be granted to the dependants of the victim who suffered
death in a police encounter, the scheme provided under Section 357-A of the Code must be
applied.

(13) The police officer(s) concerned must surrender his/her weapons for forensic and ballistic
analysis, including any other material, as require by the investigating team, subject to the
rights under Article 20 of the Constitution.

(14) An intimation about the incident must also be sent to the police officer's family and
should the family need services of a lawyer/counselling, same must be offered.

(15) No out-of-turn promotion or instant gallantry rewards shall be bestowed on the

concerned officers soon after the occurrence. It must be ensured at all costs that such rewards
are given/recommended only when the gallantry of the concerned officers is established
beyond doubt.

(16) If the family of the victim finds that the above procedure has not been followed or there
exists a pattern of abuse or lack of independent investigation or impartiality by any of the
functionaries as above mentioned, it may make a complaint to the Sessions Judge having
territorial jurisdiction over the place of indent. Upon such complaint being made, the
concerned Sessions Judge shall look into the merits of the complaint and address the
grievances raised therein.

4) Requirement of special investigation probe in the matters of encounters

Memorial on behalf of Petitioner

 KGS506

In R.S. Sodhi Advocate v. State of U.P. and Others, 1994 AIR 38, a writ petition
was brought to this court under article 32 of the constitution relating an incident in which 10
persons were reported to have been killed in what were described as “encounters” between
the Punjab militants and the local police. The Court observed, “Whether the loss of lives was
on account of a genuine or fake encounter is a matter which has to be inquired into and
investigated closely”. The court entrusted the investigation to the Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI) to ensure that the investigation did not lack credibility.

In the case of M/s. Andhra Pradesh Police Officers Association v. A.P. Civil
Liberties Committee, 2019 while upholding the 16 directions have been issued by this
Hon’ble Court to be treated as law under Article 141 of the Constitution.

In Case of Prakash Kadam and ors. v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta and Anr.
(2011) 6 SCC 189 Reported in 2011, the allegation was that the accused persons decided to
eliminate the deceased in a false encounter. The court noted that this was a very serious case
wherein prima facie some police officers and staff were engaged by some private persons to
kill the opponent and the police officers and the staff acted as contract killers for them. The
court warned policemen that they would not be excused for committing murder in the name
of “encounter” on the pretext that they were carrying out the orders of their superior officers
or politicians. The court said that the “encounter” philosophy is a criminal philosophy.

A two-bench judge in B.G. Varghese v. Union of India and ors. (2013) 11 SCC
525, dealt with two writ petitions. In writ petition (Criminal) No. 31/2007, it was stated that
during the years 2003-2006, 21 police encounters killings took place in the state of Gujarat. It
was alleged that the so-called police encounter were fake and persons were killed by the
police official in cold blood. The writ petition a prayer was made for ordering an inquiry into
all the cases of police encounters, which, according to the petitioner, were fake in order to
establish the rule of law and to bring out the truth of the case. In other writ petition
(Criminal) No. 83/2007, the allegation related to the killing of one person in a police
encounter. It was alleged that this was too an instance of fake encounter in which the victim
was killed by the officers of the crime branch of police in cold blood and in a premeditate

Memorial on behalf of Petitioner

 KGS506

manner. The prayer was made in the writ petition to order an independent investigation by a
special investigation team into all the fake encounters.

During the pendency of matter before this Court, the state of Gujarat had constituted a
monitoring Authority and Special Task Force for investigation of Police encounters. Since
the former Judge of this court was appointed as Chairman of the Monitoring Authority, the
Court requested the chairman to look into all the cases of alleged fake encounters as
enumerated in the two writ petitions and to have them thoroughly investigated so that full and
complete truth comes to light in each case.

The above cases have been referred only by way of illustration to show that killings in
police encounters require independent investigation. The killings in police encounters affect
the credibility of rule of law and the administration of the criminal justice system.

We are not oblivious of the fact that police of Scindia has to perform a difficult and
delicate task, particularly, drug peddlers, smugglers who have organized gangs, have taken
strong roots in the society but then such criminals must be dealt with by the police in an
efficient and effective manner so as to bring them to justice by following rule of law. We are
of view that it would be useful and effective to structure appropriate guidelines to restore the
faith of the people in police force. In a society governed by the rule of law, it is imperative
that extra-judicial killings are properly and independently investigated so that justice may be
done”.

Because of the aforesaid facts, circumstances and grounds, this Hon’ble Court may be
pleased to order for registration of FIR, and independent Investigation against the above said
police personnel. The action of the respondent police officials in killing alleged in a fake
encounter will cause the fundamental rights of life, liberty, safety, security, law and order and
equality guaranteed under article 19, 21 and 14 of the Constitution of large number of
innocent public are likely to be caused.

Memorial on behalf of Petitioner

 KGS506

II. THAT A COMPENSATION OF RUPEES FIFTY LAKH EACH SHOULD

BE PAID BY STATE OF KIVI TO THE FAMILIES OF THE FOUR
ACCUSED IS IN ORDER.

1. Abuse of authorities and powers assigned to the police constables

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Scindia that a

compensation of Rupees Fifty Lakh each indeed to be paid by the State of Kivi to families of
the four accused is in order. Compensation should be paid for the wrong done to the suspects
by killing them without any reasonable grounds and with unfair means. The families of these
accused have a suffered a huge loss since probably they have lost the only bread-earner of the
family. The government ought to compensate these extra-judicial killings since the police
officials have abused their powers and gone beyond the scope of their powers.

Indian Police personnel don't have any inherent powers as such. All powers are
exercised as per the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) and other acts of Parliament,
special and local laws. Even the Director General of Police needs to act as per the Cr.P.C
though he has powers to make rules regarding the functioning of the Police force in a state
within the framework of the Constitution. Regarding Law and Order in a district the
Superintendent of Police is said to be subordinate to the Collector/District Magistrate. In a
commissioner the functional powers of a District Magistrate is possessed by the
Commissioner of Police. Even a constable is an officer as per Cr.P.C.

According to National Police Commission set up by the Government of India in 1977,

the following are the duties and responsibilities of the police:
i) to promote and preserve public order
ii) Investigate crimes
iii) Identify problems and situations that are likely lead to crimes;
iv) reduce the opportunities for the commission of crimes through preventive
patrol and other police measures
v) aid and cooperate with other relevant agencies in implementing appropriate
measures for prevention of crimes

Memorial on behalf of Petitioner

 KGS506

vi) aid individuals who are in danger of physical harm

vii) create and maintain a feeling of security in the community
viii) facilitate orderly movement of people and vehicles
ix) counsel and resolve conflicts and promote amity
x) provide other appropriate services and provide relief to people in distress
and
xi) collect intelligence reports relating to matters affecting public peace and
crimes in general including social and economic offences, national integrity
and security.

2. Judiciary of Scindia follows principles of natural justice and rule of law -

In “Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra” AIR 2012 SC 3565, the
prime accused was given free legal aid for defence even when he was caught red handed as
soon as he shot at the police constable at the Marine Drive in South Mumbai area while he
was trying to escape and proven guilty by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The
Judicial system strictly follows the principles of natural justice and rule of law.

In the case of “Mukesh & Anr v. State For NCT Of Delhi & Ors” 2017 (3) SCC
719 popularly known as Nirbhaya case, the convicts were given ample time and delay was
being caused due to opportunity given in exhausting legal remedies only to follow rule of law
and that the land believes in giving an opportunity to every person of being heard and no man
should be prosecuted unheard.

In the case of Hasa Basumatary v. Union of India & Ors. 2009 (4) GLT 428 The
Hon’ble Court of Gauhati held Army authorities to be responsible for death of deceased
persons. Finding of Court entitled family members of deceased to compensation in domain of
public law on account of infringement of fundamental rights of victims guaranteed by Article
21 of Constitution. From post mortem report furnished to Court by Petitioner, Court found
that all deceased persons were young men between 25 to 27 years of age and that they were
all bachelors working as cultivators.

Memorial on behalf of Petitioner

 KGS506

Determination of extent or quantum of compensation necessarily involved subjective

element i.e. taking into account age of deceased, their occupation and other relevant
circumstances that compensation amount each would meet ends of justice. Court directed the
Union to pay concerned amount to respective heads of families of deceased persons within
period of two months from date of receipt of the said order. Materials available to Court
indicated sufficient room for entertaining view that four young boys had been killed by Army
personnel in cold blood. Surely, payment of compensation alone cannot fully satisfy
requirements of justice. Therefore, Court directed the Officer-in-Charge of police Station
under whose jurisdiction incident took place, to register case under Section 302 of IPC and to
investigate same where the Writ Petition was allowed.

III. THAT THE PIL SEEKING STRINGENT ACTION AND DISMISSAL OF

ALL THE POLICEMEN INVOLVED IN EXTRA JUDICIAL KILLINGS
SHOULD BE GRANTED.

1. . No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according

to a procedure established by law

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Scindia that the Public
Interest Litigation seeks stringent action and dismissal of all the policemen involved in the
extra-judicial killings.

Right to Life –

Such killings violate the basic violation of the provisions of Constitution of the Land,
where Art. 21 guarantees Right to Life as a Fundamental Human right enshrined upon every
citizen of the country. Art. 21 of the Constitution of Scindia reads as:

“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to
a  procedure established by law.”

Memorial on behalf of Petitioner

 KGS506

According to Bhagwati, J., Article 21 “embodies a constitutional value of

supreme importance in a democratic society.” Iyer, J., has characterized Article 21
as “the procedural magna carta protective of life and liberty.”

This right has been held to be the heart of the Constitution, the most organic
and progressive provision in the living constitution, the foundation of all the laws.
Article 21 can only be claimed when a person is deprived of his “life” or “personal
liberty” by the “State” as defined in Article 12. Violation of the right by private
individuals is not within the preview of Article 21. Article 21 applies to natural
persons. The right is available to every person, citizen or alien. Thus, even a foreigner
can claim this right.

Art. 21 secures two rights:

1)  Right to life, and

2) Right to personal liberty.

The Article prohibits the deprivation of the above rights except according to a
procedure established by law. Article 21 corresponds to the  Magna Carta of 1215,
the Fifth Amendment to the American Constitution, Art. 40(4) of the Constitution of
Eire 1937, and Art. XXXI of the Constitution of Japan, 1946.

The Art. thus states that ‘Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of
person’. The right to life is undoubtedly the most fundamental of all rights. All other rights
add quality to the life in question and depend on the pre-existence of life itself for their
operation. As human rights can only attach to living beings, one might expect the right to life
itself to be in some sense primary, since none of the other rights would have any value or
Memorial on behalf of Petitioner
 KGS506

utility without it. There would have been no Fundamental Rights worth mentioning if Art. 21
had been interpreted in its original sense.

Art. 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 provides that, “No person shall be deprived
of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” ‘Life’ in Art.
21 of the Constitution is not merely the physical act of breathing. It does not connote mere
animal existence or continued drudgery through life. It has a much wider meaning which
includes right to live with human dignity, right to livelihood, right to health, right to pollution
and free air, etc.

Right to life is fundamental to our very existence without which we cannot live as a
human being and includes all those aspects of life, which go to make a man’s life meaningful,
complete, and worth living. It is the only article in the Constitution that has received the
widest possible interpretation. Under the canopy of Art. 21, so many rights have found
shelter, growth, and nourishment. Thus, the bare necessities, minimum and basic
requirements that are essential and unavoidable for a person is the core concept of the right to
life.

In the case of Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC SC 1295 the
Supreme Court quoted and held that:

By the term “life” as here used something more is meant than mere animal existence.
The inhibition against its deprivation extends to all those limbs and faculties by which life is
enjoyed. The provision equally prohibits the mutilation of the body by amputation of an
armored leg or the pulling out of an eye, or the destruction of any other organ of the body
through which the soul communicates with the outer world.

Memorial on behalf of Petitioner

 KGS506

In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1978 SC 1675 the Supreme Court
reiterated with the approval the above observations and held that the “right to life” included
the right to lead a healthy life so as to enjoy all faculties of the human body in their prime
conditions. It would even include the right to protection of a person’s tradition, culture,
heritage and all that gives meaning to a man’s life. It includes the right to live in peace, to
sleep in peace and the right to repose and health.

The term extrajudicial killing is used for executions done by the state outside the due process
of law. The common man is highly unsatisfied with the long-delay in the justice-delivery
process. Very often, the accused are not convicted due to lack of evidence. Many see
encounter killings as a means of ensuring speedy justice. Rule of law is the fundamental
principle of governance of any civilized liberal democracy. It avoids any sort of arbitrariness.

But still certain doubts persist which question the extra-judicial killings -
1. What if those who are killed by encounters are innocent?
2. What if the authorities start to misuse the power?
3. What if the killings eliminate any further proof of other persons involved?

The police can justify their wrong-doings only under two circumstances in which such killing
would not constitute an offence -

 if death is caused in the exercise of the right of private defense

 if it is necessary to arrest the person accused of an offence punishable with death or
imprisonment for life – under Section 46 of the Cr.P.C, which authorizes the police to
use force, extending up to the causing of death, as may be

The expression “procedure established by law” has been the subject matter of
interpretation in a catena of cases. A survey of these cases reveals that courts in the process of
judicial interpretation have enlarged the scope of the expression. The Supreme Court took the
view that “procedure established by law” in Article 21 means procedure prescribed by law as
enacted by the state and rejected to equate it with the American “due process of law.”

Memorial on behalf of Petitioner

 KGS506

But, in Maneka Gandhi v Union of India 1978 SCR (2) 621 the Supreme Court
observed that the procedure prescribed by law for depriving a person of his life and personal
liberty must be “right, just and fair” and not “arbitrary, fanciful and oppressive,” otherwise it
would be no procedure at all and the requirement of Article 21 would not be satisfied. Thus,
the “procedure established by law” has acquired the same significance in India as the “due
process of law” clause in America.

The Supreme Court has taken the view that this article read as a whole is concerned
with the fullest development of an individual and ensuring his dignity through the rule of law.
Every procedure must seem to be ‘reasonable, fair and just.’ The right to life and personal
liberty has been interpreted widely to include the right to livelihood, health, education,
environment and all those matters that contributed to life with dignity.

The test of procedural fairness has been deemed to be one that is commensurate to
protecting such rights. Thus, where workers have been deemed to have the right to public
employment and its concomitant right to livelihood, a hire-fire clause in favour of the State is
not reasonable, fair and just even though the State cannot affirmatively provide a livelihood
for all.

Under this doctrine, the Court will not just examine whether the procedure itself is
reasonable, fair and just, but also whether it has been operated in a fair, just and reasonable
manner. This has meant, for example, the right to speedy trial and legal aid is part of any
reasonable, fair and just procedure. The process clause is comprehensive and applicable in all
areas of State action covering civil, criminal and administrative action.

Memorial on behalf of Petitioner

 KGS506

The Supreme Court of India in one of the landmark decision in the case of Murli S.
Deora v. Union of India AIR 2002 SC 40 observed that the fundamental right guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides that none shall be deprived of his life
without due process of law. 

Right against Custodial Violence -

The incidents of brutal police behaviour towards persons detained on suspicion of

having committed crimes are a routine matter. There has been a lot of public outcry from
time to time against custodial deaths. The act of extra judicial killings in this case is just
furtherance of the custodial torture and deaths, only not being within the four walls of police
cell or lock-up.

The Supreme Court has taken a very positive stand against the atrocities, intimidation,
harassment and use of third-degree methods to extort confessions. The Court has classified
these as being against human dignity. The rights under Article 21 secure life with human
dignity and the same are available against torture.

In the case of D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 610 the
Supreme Court laid down detailed guidelines to be followed by the central and state
investigating agencies in all cases of arrest and detention till legal provisions are
made in that behalf as preventive measures and held that any form of torture or cruel
inhuman or degrading treatment, whether it occurs during interrogation, investigation
or otherwise, falls within the ambit of Article 21.

Right to bail -

Memorial on behalf of Petitioner

 KGS506

Incarceration of persons charged with non-bailable offenses during the

pendency of trial cannot be questioned as violative of Article 21 since the same is
authorized by law. In the case of  Babu Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC
527 the Court held that right to bail was included in the personal liberty under Article
21 and its refusal would be the deprivation of that liberty which could be authorized
in accordance with the procedure established by law.

Right to free and fair trial -

Free and fair trial has been said to be the sine qua non of Article 21. The Supreme
Court in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat AIR 2006 SC 1367   said that right to
free and fair trial not only to the accused but also to the victims, their family members and
relatives, and society at large.

Right against Illegal Detention -

In  Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1994 SC 1349 the petitioner
was detained by the police officers and his whereabouts were not told to his family
members for a period of five days. Taking the serious note of the police high
headedness and illegal detention of a free citizen, the Supreme Court laid down the
guidelines governing arrest of a person during the investigation.

An arrested person being held in custody is entitled if he so requests to have a

friend, relative or other person told as far as is practicable that he has been arrested
and where he is being detained. The police officer shall inform the arrested person
when he is brought to the police station of this right. An entry shall be required to be
made in the diary as to who was informed of the arrest.

Memorial on behalf of Petitioner

 KGS506

2. Guidelines issued by Supreme Court in case of death or grievous injury in

police encounters

In ‘People’s Union for Civil Liberties & Anr vs State of Maharashtra and Ors’
1983 SCR (1) 456 a Bench of then Chief Justice of India R M Lodha and Justice Rohinton F
Nariman issued a detailed 16-point procedure “to be followed in the matters of investigating
police encounters in the cases of death as the standard procedure for thorough, effective and
independent investigation”. As per the Supreme Court of India, every death at police hands
must be recorded and investigated by an independent agency or a police unit not involved in
the case. PUCL had challenged the genuineness of at least 99 so-called encounters — staged
killings — between the Mumbai Police and alleged criminals resulting in their deaths
between 1995 and 1997.

The guidelines, in brief, are as follows:

1. Tip-offs about criminal activities must be recorded either in writing or electronic form.
2. If pursuant to a tip-off the police use firearms and this results in the death of a person,
then an FIR initiating proper criminal investigation must be registered.
3. The investigation into such death will be done by an independent CID team which has
to fulfil eight minimum investigation requirements.
4. A mandatory magisterial enquiry into all cases of encounter deaths.
5. The NHRC or State commission must be immediately informed of the encounter death.
6. Medical aid to injured victim/criminal and a magistrate should record his statement.
7. Ensure forwarding FIR and police diary entries to court without delay.
8. Expeditious and proper trial.
9. Informing next of kin of the dead alleged criminal.
10. Bi-annual statements of all encounter killings to be sent to the NHRC and state
commissions by a set date in a set format.
11. Disciplinary action against and suspension of a police officer if found guilty of
wrongful encounter.
12. Compensation scheme under the Cr.P.C. to be followed for awarding it to the kin of the
dead victim.
13. Police officers must surrender their weapons for investigation, subject to rights under
Article 20 of the Constitution.

Memorial on behalf of Petitioner

 KGS506

14. Intimate family of the accused police officer and offer services of lawyer/counsellor.
15. No out of turn gallantry awards for the officers involved in encounter killings.
16. The family of the victim can complain to the Sessions judge if it feels that these
guidelines have not been followed. The judge will take cognizance.

Unless it is for self-defense, all extra-judicial killings are otherwise unacceptable in a

society of law. ‘The rule by gun’ should not be preferred to ‘the rule of law’. The
fundamental premise of the rule of law is that every human being, including the worst
criminal, is entitled to basic human rights and due process. The need of the hour is to rebuild
the lost trust in the justice delivery mechanism in the country and fast-track the process.

In March 1997, Justice M N Venkatachaliah, then chairperson of the NHRC, wrote to

all Chief Ministers to say that “the Commission has been receiving complaints from the
members of the general public and from the non-governmental organizations that instances of
fake encounters by the police are on the increase and that police kill persons instead of
subjecting them to due process of law if offences are alleged against them”.

Justice Venkatachaliah, who was Chief Justice of India in 1993-94, underlined that
“under our laws the police have not been conferred any right to take away the life of another
person”, and “if, by his act, the policeman kills a person, he commits the offence of culpable
homicide whether amounting to the offence of murder or not unless it is proved that such
killing was not an offence under the law”.

Fake encounters are a symptom of the failure to hold security forces accountable for their
crimes, but they are also a consequence of other problems. An overloaded justice system makes each
trial a very long, drawn-out process. Witnesses are often threatened, yet there is no effective system of
witness protection. Repeated and lengthy hearings mean that many witnesses no longer want to
testify. Without proper training and equipment to secure evidence, the police rely on torture to secure
confessions. The police often admit privately that they engage in fake encounters because they are
frustrated that criminals captured after much effort simply walk away.

The Code of Criminal Procedure fails to define the term ‘arrest’. Arrest in a general
sense has always been associated with taking someone into police custody. In criminal law, it
means apprehending someone who has committed an offence or is likely to commit an

Memorial on behalf of Petitioner

 KGS506

offence by taking them into custody by an authority, more often than not, by the police
through the cessation of liberty, in order to put a criminal charge against that offender.
Subsequently, preventive arrest is depriving someone of their liberty by taking them into
police custody before the commission of the offence.

Every democratic State believes in the principles laid down by Dicey in his theory of
rule of law i.e. 1. Supremacy of law 2. Equality before Law 3. Predominance of legal spirit.
General rule states that even if the State has to let go of hundred guilty persons it is justified
but one innocent should not be incriminated. Every mistake under these sections of falsely
incriminating an innocent contravenes the principles of natural justice and rule of law, the
two legal principles that the Constitution of India finds its basis on.

The Code of Criminal Procedure states the powers and procedure to be followed by
the Police under Sections 154 – 176 mentioned in Chapter 12 of the Code. Important few are
listed below that clearly reflect the powers and procedure to be followed by the Police in any
cognizable case which includes grievous offences such as rape and murder.

 Section 156 states Police officer’s power to investigate cognizable cases

 Section 157 states Procedure for investigation
 Section 158 mandates Report to be submitted
 Section 159 states Power to hold investigation or preliminary inquiry
 Section 172 mandates Police officer to maintain a Diary of proceeding in
investigation
No procedure seems to be followed in case of the petitioners leading to extra-judicial
killings by the police officials, thereby violating Rule of Law and Principles of Natural
Justice. In India, the death sentence can be awarded only on the rarest of the rare cases– by
the Supreme Court of India – after following the due process of law.

IV. THAT THE COURTS SHOULD ISSUE GUIDELINES TO ALL MEDIA

REGARDING THE REPORTING BROADCASTING, PUBLICATION OF
REPORTS PERTAINING TO SERIOUS CRIMES SUCH AS RAPES AND

Memorial on behalf of Petitioner

 KGS506

MURDERS WHICH HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO INCITE VIOLENCE

AND CAUSE OUTRAGE AMONGST GENERAL PUBLIC.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Scindia that the Courts
should issue guidelines to all media regarding the reporting broadcasting, publication of
reports pertaining to serious crimes such as rapes and murders which have the potential to
incite violence and cause outrage amongst general public as also warn them of unnecessary
exposure of trials, accused and victims leading to Media Trial.

Media is the Fourth Pillar of Democracy after Judiciary, Executive, Legislature. It is

thereby important for the media houses to practice responsible journalism. Christiane
Amanpour a British-Iranian journalist and television host, who is the Chief International
Anchor for CNN says that “And I believe that good journalism, good television, can make
our world a better place.”

It is necessary to cultivate a culture of good journalism, it is also equally essential to

keep a track of any mistaken steps. Over the years, the journalism world has often been in the
radar for an alleged decreasing credibility. From sensationalism to fake news, there are many
things to tarnish the image of journalism we have had in our minds for decades - fierce and
honest.

This fourth pillar of democracy must ensure that all people living in far off areas of
country are aware of what’s happening in rest of their country. Media ensures transparency in
the working of all the above three systems. These are the four pillars of democracy and if any
of these pillars is not working properly then somewhere democracy is still not fully
functional.
The powers of each of these pillars vary from country to country. In India, no single
pillar is made too strong. In American constitution, judiciary is made powerful whereas in
UK, legislature dominates judiciary. But Media is most powerful entity on earth. It makes us
aware of various social, political and economic activities around us. It is like a mirror which
shows us the bare truth and harsh realities of life.

Over the years, media has become more active. It is media which reminds the
government of its unfulfilled promises, educates masses in rural areas through television,
Memorial on behalf of Petitioner
 KGS506

radio and internet and exposes the loopholes in the system. It is the most powerful tool to
fight against socio-political evils and injustice in our society, while bringing empowerment to
the masses and facilitating development.

In this age of technology, we are bombarded with information. The perfect blend of
technology and media has left no stone unturned in unearthing corruption and politics in our
society. Media has strength and ability to change both social and government attitude towards
various key problems. All journalists have responsibility to report unbiased, accurate
information as they receive from reliable sources. Media is a hope that as the fourth pillar of
state, it will act as a pillar of democracy for as long as the present political, economic and
social structures are moving in the right direction. There is no doubt that without this key
pillar, democracy cannot function properly and will be at risk.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph of Supreme Court of India while addressing the
Bar Council of India Meet at Chennai on 26.07.2015 citing pressure on the judiciary during
the Nirbhaya rape case, had remarked that Media Trials in pending cases should be avoided
and thereby judges saved of the enormous strain created by it.

The Judge said "If I had not given that punishment they would have hung me, the
media had already given their verdict, (like) it is going to be this only," according to Hon'ble
Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph. He, however, added, "he (the Judge who went into Nirbhaya case)
had reasons to give the punishment, not because the media said it, but because he had
reasons." He said that the judge who dealt with the sensational case "was also making a
casual remark that had it not been done, the people would have hung him because that was
the type of pressure... (hence) never ever resort to media trial, you do it after the judgement is
delivered."

The case filed by the plaintiff Anil Kumar seeking damages to the tune of Rs. 10 Lacs
from the defendants for airing the docudrama India's Most Wanted - C.P. Shoot Out Case by
allegedly twisting and distorting the facts and events thereby causing immense damage to the
reputation of the plaintiff and a further direction to the defendants prohibiting the telecast of
Connaught Place Shootout case in any manner.

Memorial on behalf of Petitioner

 KGS506

Reputation is an important part of one’s life. It is one of the finer graces of human
civilization that makes life worth living. The Supreme Court referring to D.F. Marion v.
Minnie Davis 55 American LR 171 in Smt. Kiran Bedi v. Committee of Inquiry 1989
SCR (1) 20 held that “good reputation was an element of personal security and was
protected by the Constitution, equally with the right to the enjoyment of life, liberty, and
property. The court affirmed that the right to enjoyment of life, liberty, and property. The
court affirmed that the right to enjoyment of private reputation was of ancient origin and was
necessary to human society.”

The same American Decision has also been referred to in the case of State of
Maharashtra v. Public Concern of Governance Trust, AIR 1989 SC 714 where the Court
held that good reputation was an element of personal security and was protected by the
constitution, equally with the right to the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property. It has been
held that the right equally covers the reputation of a person during and after his death. Thus,
any wrong action of the state or agencies that sullies the reputation of a virtuous person
would certainly come under the scope of Art. 21.

In State of U.P. v. Mohammaad Naim, 1964 SCR (2) 365 succinctly laid down the
following tests while dealing the question of expunction of disgracing remarks against a
person or authority whose conduct comes in consideration before a court of law:

 whether the party whose conduct is in question is before the court or has an
opportunity of explaining or defending himself.
 whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks.
 whether it is necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof, to
animadvert on that conduct. It has also been recognized that judicial pronouncements
must be judicial in nature, and should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation,
and reserve.

In State of Bihar v. Lal Krishna Advani, AIR 2003 SC 3157 a two-member

commission of inquiry appointed to inquire into the communal disturbances in Bhagalpur
district on 24th October, 1989, made some remarks in their report, which impinged upon the
reputation of the respondent as a public man, without affording him an opportunity of being

Memorial on behalf of Petitioner

 KGS506

heard. The Apex Court ruled that it was amply clear that one was entitled to have and
preserve one’s reputation and one also had the right to protect it.

The court further said that in case any authority, in the discharge of its duties fastened
upon it under the law, transverse into the realm of personal reputation adversely affecting
him, it must provide a chance to him to have his say in the matter. The court observed that the
principle of natural justice made it incumbent upon the authority to give an opportunity to the
person before any comment was made or opinion was expressed which was likely to
prejudicially affect that person.

Memorial on behalf of Petitioner

 KGS506

PRAYERS

Wherefore, in the light of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced
and Authorities cited, the Counsels on behalf of the Petitioner humbly pray before this
Hon’ble Supreme Court of Scindia that it may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:

1. Special investigation probe to be allowed in the matter of the alleged encounter and to
be monitored by a retired Supreme Court Judge.

2. Order and direct a compensation of rupees fifty lakh each to be paid by the State of
Kivi to the families of the four accused.

3. PIL seeking stringent action and dismissal of all the policemen involved in extra
judicial killings should be allowed.

4. Issue guidelines to all media regarding the reporting broadcasting, publication of

reports pertaining to serious crimes such as rapes and murders which have the
potential to incite violence and cause outrage amongst general public.

And/or

Pass any other order that the court may deem fit in the light of equity, justice and good
Conscience and for this Act of kindness of Your Lordships the Petitioner shall as duty
bound ever pray.

Memorial on behalf of Petitioner

 KGS506

Sd/-
COUNSELS FOR THE PETITIONER

Memorial on behalf of Petitioner