PETITIONER

ISSUE NO. – 1. WHETHER THE PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 IS

MAINTAINABLE AGAINST THE PARTIES?

1. It is humbly submitted before Hon’ble Supreme Court of Winden that the present
petition is maintainable under Article 32 of the Constitution. (Constitution of India,
Pari Materia1), since it falls within the ambit of “other authorities” as enshrined under
Art.122 of the Constitution. Petitioner request Tribunal to hear the challenge against
Friends-Meet because, [1.1] The Ambit of Article 12 Ratify the private body on the
definition of state, [1.2] Amenable power Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India,
[1.3] The petitioner has Locus Standi3 to file a Petition, [1.4] Petitioner PIL is cogent
under Public Interest.

[1.1] THE AMBIT OF ARTICLE 12 RATIFY THE PRIVATE BODY ON THE

DEFINITION OF STATE:

2. Fundamental rights guaranteed provided in the Indian Constitution care guaranteed

against any Executive actionsan be enforced against any executive action. Public
Function is one which “Seeks to achieve some collective benefit for the public or a
section of the public”.4 “Any institutions engaged in performing public functions are, by
virtue of the functions performed, can be termed as government agencies.”5

1 Of the same matter; on the same subject (Collector of Central Excise Vs Re - Rolling Mills, 1997(94) ELT 8 (S.C.))
write this citation again.
2 THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 2019 correct the citation in accordance with the style recommended in the rules of
the competition.
3 The right of a party to appear and be heard before a court. (BOC India Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors., 2009 (237)
ELT 7 (SC) See also), (Oswal Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Bolpur 2015 (318) ELT 617
(SC))
4 Binny Ltd. And Anr. v. Sadasivan and Ors. AIR 2005 SC 320

5 Sukhdev and Ors v. Bhagatram and Ors AIR 1975 SC 1331

 3. The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of
the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed. NGONGO SSS “Samaj Sewa aur
Suraksha” does fall within the definition of “State” (Part-III of Constitution of India,
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS). “Unless the context otherwise requires, “the State”
includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the
Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of
India or under the control of the Government of India.”6

4. “Management of State enterprises will as a rule be through the medium of public

corporation under the statutory control of the Central Government who will assume such
powers as may be necessary to ensure this.” 7 The fundamental right to equality 8

enshrined under Art. 14 of the Constitution have been violated because of the steps of
the new Heyapp Policy taken for the Security of the Winden Public.

5. HeyApp Serves as a medium for people to communicate and carry out business, thus
performing a public function, and is therefore amenable to the Juris dictation of the court
under Article 32.9 Ignorantia Facti Excusat – Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat 10 by the court
of Law, Constitution of India.

[1.2] AMENABLE POWER UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

INDIA:

6. The Writ Jurisdiction of Supreme court can be invoked under Article 32 of the
constitution for the violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part-III of the
Constitution. The original Juris dictation Of the Supreme court can be invoked in case of
violation of a fundamental right guaranteed by part III of the Constitution of India.11

6 Constitution of India, Article 12.

7 Ajay Hasia & Ors. v. Khalid Mujib Sehra Vadi & Ors's
8 Maneka Gandhi V. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597.
9 Moot prop. ¶ 17. Available point no. 17(a) on the MOOT Proportion.
10 Ignorance of facts may be excused but not ignorance of law. (S.A.Qadir v. Vs. The Union of India and Ors citation?.,
See also,), (Ajai Kumar Agnihotri & Anr Vs CCE) where is the citation?

11 Chiranjit Lal Chowdhury V. Union of India SCC online

 7. The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including
writs in the nature of Habeas corpus, 12 Mandamus,13 Quo Warranto14 and Certiorari,15
whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this
Part.

8. In the instant case Heyapp New Policy is to “allow third-party services providers to
manage communications for the best online experiences” 16 with clauses in the policy is
both public function and governmental function. If Heyapp is a private party, a PIL can
be instituted against a private party under Art.32 of the Constitution, 17 if the State is
made a co-party in the petition.

9. Article 32 described as the most important one, without which the constitution would be
reduced to nullity. It is also referred to as the heart and soul of the constitution. By
including Article 32 in the Fundamental Rights, the supreme court has been made the
protector and guarantor of these rights.18

[1.3] THE PETITIONER HAS LOCUS STANDI TO FILE A PETITION:

10. Only a person acting ‘bona fide’ and ‘having sufficient public interest’. In the
proceeding of Public Interest, litigation will have alone the ‘locus standi’, but not a
person for personal gain or political motive or any oblique consideration.19

12 You have the body. A writ (court order) that commands an individual or a government official who has restrained
another to produce the prison er at a designated time and pl ace so that the court can deter mine the legality of custody
and decide whether to order the prisoner's release. (Purshottam Govindji Halaivas. Shree B.M.Desai, Additional
Collector of Bombay and Ors. AIR 1956 SC 20), (UOI Vs. Paul Manickam, 2003 (162) ELT 6 (SC)).
13 A writ or order that is issued from a court of superior juris diction that commands an inferior tribunal/court to perform,
or refrain from performing, a particular act, the performance of which is required by law as an obligation. (Shenoy and
Co., Bangalore and Ors. Vs. Commercial Tax Off icer, Circle II, Bangalore and Ors., AIR 1985 SC 621).
14 An order issued by authority of the king. A legal proceeding during which an individual's right to h old an office or
government’s privilege is challenged. (Dr. D .K .Belsarevs . Nagpur University: 1980(82) BomLR494), (L. Chandra
Kumar Vs. UOI 1997 (92) ELT 318 (SC))
15 A writ or order by which a higher court reviews a case tried in a lower court. (Pankaj Kumar Ganguly And Ors. Vs
Bank Of India And Ors. on 17 April, 1956 ) write the case again and do not cut copy paste. Just the case name and then
the citation

16 Moot prop. ¶ 9. This is how you mention a paragraph in citation Available point no. 09. on the MOOT Proportion.
17 Indian Council for Enviro Legal Action v. Union of India, (2011) 8 SCC 161. Absolutely correct citation this is the
correct way just keep in mind the commas and full stop in accordance with the citation style.
18 By Dr. B. R. Ambedkar in Constitution.this is not a citation site the document or the book from where you have picked
it from .
19 Janata Dal V. H. S. Chowdhury. SCC Online.
 11. The rule of Locus standi have been relaxed and abortion 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 violation of fundamental rights and
genuine infraction of Statutory provisions, but not for the personal gain or private profit
or political motive or any oblique consideration.

12. The Petitioner Samar Pratap Singh being the NGO SSS “Samaj Sewa aur Suraksha”
which actively work in the field of public health and welfare, particularly to those
belongings to lower strata therefore capable of being acting Bona fide.

13. The General Principle is that a person whose Fundamental Right has been infringed
has Locus Standi to move the Supreme Court under Article 32 for the enforcement of his
rights.20

[1.4] PETITIONER PIL IS COGENT UNDER PUBLIC INTEREST:

14. To invoke the jurisdiction of the SC is not necessary that the fundamental right must
have been actually infringed- a threat to the same would be sufficient. 21 Applying the
doctrine of ‘reasonable apprehension’, this Hon’ble Court may interfere directly in the
said case. The most fundamental right of an individual is his right to life; if an
administrative decision may put his life at risk, the basis for the decision surely calls for
the most anxious scrutiny according to the principle of ‘anxious scrutiny’. 22 Thus, the
petitioned filed before this apex court is maintainable.

15. In 1981 Justice P. N. Bhagwati 23

articulated the concept of PIL as follows, “Any
member of public can maintain an application for an appropriate direction, order of
writ in the High court under article 226 and in case any breach of fundamental

20 Indian Constitutional Law, Sixth Reprint 2012 by M. P. JAIN.

21 (Roop Chand v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 1503).
22 Bugdaycay [1987] AC 514, where Lord Bridge said at 531E-G)
23 S. P. Gupta v. Union of India, SCC.
 rights of such person or determinate class of person, in this court under article 32
seeking judicial redress for the legal wrong or legal caused to such person or
determinate class of persons.”

Hence, it is humbly submitted that since there has Being a violation of the fundamental
rights, the court has the requisite jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition under Article 32
of the Constitution of India, brought as Public Interest Litigation.