Petitioners - 11th Nalsar Justice B.R. Sawhny Memorial Moot Court Competition, 2017 2

TEAM CODE: P44
11th NALSAR JUSTICE B.R. SAWHNY MEMORIAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2017
BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF NATRULAND
TRANSFER PETITION NO. ___/ 2017

along with
WRIT PETITION (C) NO.___/2017

along with
SUO MOTO PIL NO.___/ 2017
MR. GULLA (Petitioner)

v.
UNION OF NATRULAND & ORS. (Respondents)
along with
IN RE: SUO MOTO PETITION- NEMO v. THE UNION OF NATRULAND & ORS.
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION
JUSTICES OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF NATRULAND
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

11TH NALSAR JUSTICE B.R. SAWHNY MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ ii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................ iv
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.......................................................................................................... vi
I CASES: ................................................................................................................................... vi
II BOOKS: .............................................................................................................................. viii
III LEGISLATIONS:............................................................................................................. viii
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.............................................................................................. ix
STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................................. x
ISSUES RAISED .......................................................................................................................... xii
SUMMARY OF ARGUEMENTS .............................................................................................. xiii
ISSEE I: WHETHER THE TRANSFER PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE AND MERITS

OF THE CASE CAN BE HEARD BY THE COURT. ........................................................... xiii
ARGUMENTS ADVANDED ........................................................................................................ 1
[I] WHETHER THE TRANSFER PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE AND MERITS OF THE

CASE CAN BE HEARD BY THE COURT. ................................................................................. 1
[I.1] TRANSFER SHOULD BE MADE AS THERE EXIST GRAVE THREAT TO THE

PROCEDURE TO SEEK JUSTICE. .......................................................................................... 1
[I.2] MERITS OF THE CASE CAN BE HEARD AS THE CASE INVOLVES VIOLATION
OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS. ................................................................................................ 3
ISSUE II: WHETHER THE PRESIDENTIAL ORDERS GRANTING SPECIAL STATUS TO

MULLU AND ITS CITIZENS ARE VALID. ............................................................................... 5
Page | ii MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

[II.1] THE PRESIDENT DOESN’T POSSESS LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE TO PASS

ORDERS IN THE NATURE OF AMENDING THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION. .................. 5
[II.2] THE PRESIDENTIAL ORDERS VIOLATE THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE

CITIZENS OF NATRULAND ................................................................................................... 6
[II.2.1] VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO EQUALITY ................................................................ 8
[II.2.2] VIOLATIVE OF FREEDOM TO RESIDE AND SETTLE IN ANY PART OF THE

COUNTRY .............................................................................................................................. 9
ISSUE III – WHETHER RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF THE CITIZENS OF NATRULAND HAS

BEEN INFRINGED...................................................................................................................... 10
[III .1] RIGHT TO PRIVACY HAS BEEN HELD AT ITS HIGHEST MANIFESTATION. 10
[III.2] PUBLICATION OF BIOMETRIC INFORMATION ALONG WITH DNA PROFILE

VIOLATES RIGHT TO PRIVACY. ........................................................................................ 13
PRAYER ....................................................................................................................................... 16
Page | iii MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATION ACTUAL TERM
& And
AIR All India Reporter
Anr. Another
App. Appellate
Div. Division
DLR Delhi Law Review
ECHR European Convention on Human Rights
Ed. Edition
Etc. Etcetera
Inc. Incoporated
J&K Jammu and Kashmir
No. Number
Ors. Others
Para. Paragraph
Pg. Page
Page | iv MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports
SA South Africa
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court of Canada
Spl. Special
UKSC United Kingdom Supreme Court
US United States
Page | v MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
I CASES:
1. Anwar Hossain Chowdhary v. Bangladesh, (41 DLR 1989 App. Div. 165, 1989 BLD
(Spl.) 1)……………………………………………………………………………………7
2. Ashutosh Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 4 SCC 34, para. 5………………………...3
3. Common Cause 'A' Registered Society, Etc. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., Etc.,
(2006) 9 SCC 295, para. 5………………………………………………………………...2
4. Delhi Judicial Service Association, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi v. State of Gujarat & Ors.,
(1991) 4 SCC 406, para. 14……………………………………………………………….3
5. Ex. Captain Harish Uppal v. Union of India (UOI) and Anr., (2003) 2 SCC 45, para.
35…………………………………………………………………………………………..1
6. Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union (Regd.), Sindri and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI)
and Ors., (1981) 1 SCC 568, para. 11……………………………………………………..3
7. G.X. Francis and Ors. v. Banke Bihari Singh and Anr., AIR 1958 SC 309, para. 9……...2
8. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US 479 (1965)……………………………………………11
9. Her Majesty, The Queen v. Brandon Roy Dyment, [1988] 2 SCR 417…………………12
10. Hunter v. Southam Inc, [1984] 2 SCR 145………………………………………………12
11. Hussain and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., (2017) 5 SCC 702, para. 25………..2
12. I.C. Golaknath & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr., AIR 1967 SC 1643…………………...6
13. Jagannath Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 1245………………………….8
14. Jagannath Prasad v. State of Uttar Prasad, AIR 1961 SC 1245…………………………...3
15. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., 2017 (10) SCALE
1…………………………………………………………………………........10, 12, 13, 15
16. K. Thimmapa v. Chairman, Central Board of Directors, AIR 2001 SC 467…………...…8
17. Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569……………………………………..15
18. Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr., (1973) 4 SCC
225………………………………………………………………………………………6, 7
19. Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1964) 1 SCR 332…………………………….12
20. Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu, AIR 1993 SC 412, para 88………………………………..5
21. Laxmi Khandsari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 873, pg 891…………………..8
Page | vi MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

22. M Nagaraj v Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212, para 21………………………………..12

23. M P Sharma v. Satish Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi, (1954) SCR 1077………….12
24. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597…………………………………..15
25. Maneka Sanjay Gandhi and Anr. v. Rani Jethmalani, (1979) 4 SCC 167, para. 4………..2
26. Minerva Mills Ltd. V. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789……………………………….7
27. Mohd. Yakub v. State of J&K, (1968) 2 SCR 227………………………………………..9
28. National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v. Minister of Justice, 1999 (1) SA 6
(CC)……………………………………………………………………………………....11
29. National Media Ltd v. Jooste, 1996 (3) SA 262 (A)…………………………………..…11
30. Natural Resource Allocations, In re Speacial reference No. 1 of 2012, (2012) 10 SCC
1 (77), para. 94……...……………………………………………………………………..3
31. NM and Others v. Smith and Others, 2007 (5) SA 250 (CC)……………………………12
32. NM and Others v. Smith and Others, 278 2007 (5) SA 250 (CC)……………………….14
33. Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 545……………………...14
34. Puranlal v. President of India, AIR 1961 SC 1519, pg. 1521……………………………..5
35. R v Spencer, (2014) SCC 43……………………………………………………………..12
36. R v. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, 241 [2011] UKSC 21…………….14
37. R.C. Poudyal v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 1804……………………………………..6
38. Riley v. California, 573 US __ (2014)…………………………………………………..11
39. Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113 (1973)……………………………………………………….11
40. Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124………………………………..13
41. S and Marper v. United Kingdom, [2008] ECHR 1581…………………………………13
42. S. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72; Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. v.
Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 872………………………………………………………..4
43. Sant Singh v. State of J&K, AIR 1959 J&K 35, pg. 40…………………………………..5
44. State Bank of India v. Santosh Gupta and Ors., AIR 2017 SC 25, para. 43………………8
45. Sunita Bugga v. Director of Education, 2010 (5) SLR 535 (Del-DB), para 29…………...3
46. T.K. Rangarajan v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors,, (2003) 6 SCC 581, para. 17….2
47. Transport & Dock Workers Union v. Mumbai Port Trust, (2011) 12 SCC 575, para.
16…......................................................................................................................................8
48. Transport & Dock Workers Union v. Mumbai Port Trust, (2011) 2 SCC 575, para. 20….3
Page | vii MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

49. Union of India v. Col. L.S.N. Murthy, (2012) 1 SCC 718, pg. 723………………………9
50. Unnikrishnan v State of Andhra Pradesh, (1993) 1 SCC 645……………………………14
II BOOKS:
1. Jain, M.P., Indian Constitutional Law (7th Ed, 2014).

2. Ayyangar, Constituent Assembly Debates on Article 370.
3. Durga Das Basu: Commentary on the Constitution of India, Vol. 10 (8th Ed. 2011).
4. D.J.D.E Interpretation of Enforcement of Fundamental Rights, Eastern La House, 2000.
5. Justice C.K. Thakker: Commentary of Constitution of India, Vol. 2 (2016).
6. Dr. V. Nirmala – Law Relating to Human Rights (16th Ed. 2015).
7. Lohit D. Naikar – The Law Relating to Human Rights (2012).
8. Justice C.K. Thakker: Commentary of Constitution of India, Vol. 1 (2016).
III LEGISLATIONS:
1. The Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia, 1932

2. The Constitution of India, 1950
3. The Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, 1956
4. Universal Declaration on Human Rights
5. Canadian Constitutional Act, 1867
6. The U.S. Constitution, 1787
IV ONLINE DATABASES:
1. Westlaw (www.westlawindia.com)
2. Manupatra (www.manupatra.com)
3. SCC Online (www.scconline.in)
4. Jstor (www.jstor.org)
5. Lexis Nexis Academics (www.lexisnexisacademics.com)
Page | viii MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of is vested with jurisdiction, to hear the present matter.
The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court for enforcement of
Fundamental rights which have been violated by the impugned Presidential Order.
Page | ix MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

STATEMENT OF FACTS
UNION OF NATRULAND
1. The Union of Natruland is a federal republic, world’s second biggest functional democracy
in the world.
2. The Union does not have a written constitution and therefore follow legislatorum tanquam
viva vox.
3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Natruland over the period of time has held that all the
fundamental rights so recognized by the UDHR and other civilized nations such as USA,
India, Canada, South Africa, and Australia apply to the Union of Natruland.
4. It has been held by the Court that the State has the duty to protect these rights in the widest
amplitude.
NANO-SCIENCE RESEARCH
5. Mr. Abhrish Natruka, who discovered MINI i.e. Multiplying Innate Nano Inhibitors which
could help cure cancer and produce better MRI scans. The use of this MINI required only
one time registration along with issuance of a MINI number.
6. This MINI number captured biometric information along with the DNA profile of the user.
Such information was shared through a license, who wanted to research on MINI. Almost
all civilized nations had Centers for Research on MINI Server (CROM). Five out of six
states of Natruland have CROM, except the State of Mullu, because their Citizen’s Council
never approved of the same.
STATE OF MULLU
7. State of Mullu has achieved special status through the Instrument of Succession, which
was incorporated by Presidential, which provided for –
a) Special status for the State of Mullu
b) A plebiscite to decide which side of the border the people of Mullu wanted to stay.
c) Non- residents of Mullu cannot buy or acquire property in the State of Mullu.
Page | x MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
MR. GULLA AND MULLUWORKS
8. Mulluworks is a corporation owned by Mr. Gulla, who is a resident of the State of Mullu.
9. Mulluworks worked in the area of data collection, data banking and data selling. Its key
customers were telecalling companies, banks and insurance companies.
10. The data so collected by Mulluworks was never connected with the names or credentials
of the individuals who were giving it, because Mr. Gulla was a supporter of Right to
Privacy.
11. Mulluworks saw business opportunity in MINI server, so contacted the hospitals to share
information.
12. Due to personal issues, while seeking divorce from Mr. Niji, Mr. Gulla wanted to transfer
part of his property and some shares of Mulluworks to Mr. Niji, which he was not able to
do due to the present laws of the State.
13. Mr. Gulla filed a writ petition challenging the prohibitions and the special status given to
the State of Mullu. This cause was not supported by the local bar of Mullu. Therefore,
members of the Bar unanimously decided to not represent Mr. Gulla in the High Court.
14. The Court then appointed Mr. Queerish Robedey as Mr. Gulla’s lawyer. Since he was not
allowed to enter the courtroom, Mr. Gulla filed a transfer petition in the SC of Natruland.
15. While the admission hearing, the judges initiated investigation against Mullworks for the
frequent calls they received from telecalling companies and filed a suo moto petition.
16. The matter is now being heard for the transfer of the case, merits of the case and for the
suo moto petition in the Supreme Court of Natruland.
Page | xi MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

ISSUES RAISED
ISSUE I: WHETHER THE TRANSFER PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE AND MERITS
OF THE CASE CAN BE HEARD BY THE COURT.
ISSUE II: WHETHER THE PRESIDENTIAL ORDERS GRANTING SPECIAL STATUS
TO MULLU AND ITS CITIZENS ARE VALID.
ISSUE III – WHETHER RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF THE CITIZENS OF NATRULAND
HAS BEEN INFRINGED.
Page | xii MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

SUMMARY OF ARGUEMENTS
ISSEE I: WHETHER THE TRANSFER PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE AND MERITS

OF THE CASE CAN BE HEARD BY THE COURT.
It is contended that the present transfer petition is maintainable as there exist a grave threat to
seek justice and there is a possibility of a miscarriage of justice, from such circumstances and
atmosphere. The court has the power to hear the merits of the case as there is violation of
fundamental rights. Supreme Court as the protector and guardian of justice, has the jurisdiction
to hear the merits of the case and provide justice.

It is contended that the presidential order granting special status to the State of Mullu and its
citizens is not valid as such order amounts to the amendment to the constitution and president
doesn’t have the power to do so. Such amendment can only be made through legislature. Also,
such presidential order is violating the right to equality and freedom to reside in any part of the
country which has been recognized as the fundamental rights by the Supreme Court of
Natruland.
ISSUE III: WHETHER RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF THE CITIZENS OF NATRULAND

HAS BEEN INFRINGED.
It is contended that the right to privacy has been violated of the citizens of Natruland by the act
of Mulluworks. Right to privacy, been recognized as a human right across the globe, is a
fundamental right of the citizens of Natruland. Publication of biometric information along with
DNA profile violate such right as recognized by the Supreme Court of Natruland.
Page | xiii MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

ARGUMENTS ADVANDED
[I] WHETHER THE TRANSFER PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE AND MERITS OF
THE CASE CAN BE HEARD BY THE COURT.
1. It is contended that the transfer petition is maintainable and the court have the power to hear
the merits of the case. This contention is sought to be proved by way of analogy on two
grounds: [I.1] transfer of the petition should be made as there exists grave threat to the
procedures to seek justice and [I.2] merits of the case can be heard as the case involves
violation of fundamental right.
[I.1] TRANSFER SHOULD BE MADE AS THERE EXIST GRAVE THREAT TO THE
PROCEDURE TO SEEK JUSTICE.
2. It is contended that the petition so pending before the High Court of Mullu should be
transferred since there exists grave threat to the procedures to seek justice and there is a
possibility of a miscarriage of justice, from such circumstances and atmosphere.
3. The Petitioner, Mr. Gulla in order to practice his fundamental rights, seeks a declaration against
the restrictions placed on non-residents of the State of Mullu and the special status so given to
them and thus filed a petition before the High Court of Mullu for the same. The Bar of the State
of Mullu did not support the cause and hence decided unanimously to not represent i.e. not
provide their legal services to Mr. Gulla. Mr. Gulla had no lawyer to represent him in the State,
thus the Bar deprived him from his right to be represented and heard at the court of law. Though
the High Court of Mullu appointed Mr. Queerish Robedey as his lawyer, on the day of hearing
of the case, the members of the local Bar of the State of Mullu unanimously restrained the
counsel from entering the courtroom of the High Court of Mullu for the purpose of the hearing.
Such unusual instances are a grave threat to the procedure to seek justice.
4. The Supreme Court of the Republic of India has held that lawyers have no right to go on strike
or give a call for boycott, not even on a token strike.1 Such suspension of work or strikes are
1
Ex. Captain Harish Uppal v. Union of India (UOI) and Anr., (2003) 2 SCC 45, para. 35.
Page | 1 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

clearly illegal and it is high time that the legal fraternity realizes its duty to the society which
is the foremost.2 Strike cannot be justified in the present-day situation, and thus it can be easily
realized that the weapon does more harm than any justice. Sufferer is the society -- public at
large.3 It is unprofessional as well as unbecoming for a lawyer who has accepted a brief to
refuse to attend Court even in pursuance of a call for strike or boycott by the Bar Association
or the Bar Council.4
5. The same court in other judgments have said that if in a certain court the whole Bar, for reasons
of hostility or otherwise, refuses to defend an accused person-an extra-ordinary situation
difficult to imagine, having regard to the ethics of the profession-it may well be put forward as
a ground which merits this Court's attention.5 Further they said that good grounds for transfer
includes the bitterness of local communal feeling and the tenseness of the atmosphere there.
6. Public confidence in the fairness of a trial held in such an atmosphere would be seriously
undermined not because the Judge was unfair or biased but because the machinery of justice
is not geared to work in the midst of such conditions.6 It causes disquiet and concern to a court
of justice if a person seeking justice is unable to appear, present one's case, bring one's
witnesses or adduce evidence. Indeed, it is the duty of the court to assure propitious conditions
which conduce to comparative tranquility at the trial7.
7. In the present case also, the bar council resolved not to defend the petitioner depriving him
from his right to be represented and heard at the court of law. Further they didn’t allow the
counsel, appointed by the high court, to appear in front of the court to fight the case causing
grave injustice to him. Henceforth, it is submitted that the present petition should be transferred
on the above mentioned grounds out of the State of Mullu.
2
Hussain and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., (2017) 5 SCC 702, para. 25.
3
T.K. Rangarajan v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors,, (2003) 6 SCC 581, para. 17.
4
Common Cause 'A' Registered Society, Etc. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., Etc., (2006) 9 SCC 295, para. 5.
5
Maneka Sanjay Gandhi and Anr. v. Rani Jethmalani, (1979) 4 SCC 167, para. 4.
6
G.X. Francis and Ors. v. Banke Bihari Singh and Anr., AIR 1958 SC 309, para. 9.
7
Supra, note no. 5.

[I.2] MERITS OF THE CASE CAN BE HEARD AS THE CASE INVOLVES
VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.
8. It is contended that the petition filed by the petitioner deals with the constitutional validity of
certain provisions made through Presidential Order. The writ has been filed against the special
status provided to the State of Mullu and its residents on certain grounds which include
violation of the fundamental right of equality and right of residence.
9. The doctrine of equality before law is necessary corollary of Rule of Law which pervades the
Indian Constitution.8 The same doctrine can be seen in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and has been recognized by the various courts across the globe. The underlying
objective of inserting right to equality is to secure all persons equality of status and opportunity
referred in the preamble to the Indian Constitution9, and has also been inserted into
Constitution of United States of America by the way of various amendments to their
constitution.
10. The classification sought to be achieved must be reasonable,10 and with intelligible differentia
which is the fon juris of the Constitution.11 When a classification is made between equals, it
has been held to be arbitrary and violative of right to equality.12
11. The Supreme Court is the protector and guardian of justice throughout the land, and has the
right to pass orders or judgements to uphold justice in the land. The jurisdiction to do so is
concurrent and not exclusive or antagonistic.13 The Supreme Court have parallel powers to the
High Courts to hear such matters as enshrined under Art. 32 14 of the Constitution of India.
“The violation of a Fundamental Right is sine qua non of the exercise of the right conferred by
Art. 32.”15 The powers of the Supreme Court are plenary and are not fettered by any legal
constraints. And every citizen on violation of the same can file a petition in the court.16
8
Ashutosh Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 4 SCC 34, para. 5.
9
Natural Resource Allocations, In re Speacial reference No. 1 of 2012, (2012) 10 SCC 1 (77), para. 94.
10
Transport & Dock Workers Union v. Mumbai Port Trust, (2011) 2 SCC 575, para. 20.
11
Sunita Bugga v. Director of Education, 2010 (5) SLR 535 (Del-DB), para 29.
12
Jagannath Prasad v. State of Uttar Prasad, AIR 1961 SC 1245.
13
Delhi Judicial Service Association, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi v. State of Gujarat & Ors., (1991) 4 SCC 406, para.
14.
14
INDIA CONST. art. 32.
15
Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union (Regd.), Sindri and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., (1981) 1 SCC
568, para. 11.
16
S. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72; Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1986
SC 872.

12. In the present case, the writ petition involves challenging certain provision of the Presidential
Order on the grounds of violating the fundamental rights. Therefore, it is submitted that the
Supreme Court being the protector and guardian of justice have the power to hear the merits
of the case and provide justice.

13. It is contended that the Presidential orders granting special status to the state of Mullu and its
citizens are not valid. This contention is sought to be proved by way of analogy on two grounds:
[II.1] The President doesn’t possess the power to pass the impugned order, [II.2] The
Presidential Orders violate the Fundamental Rights of the citizens of Natruland.
[II.1] THE PRESIDENT DOESN’T POSSESS LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE TO PASS
ORDERS IN THE NATURE OF AMENDING THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION.
14. It is contended that the President passing an order incorporating the amount to clauses granting
special status to Mullu and its citizens would amending the Indian Constitution by way of
order passed by the President of India. Art. 37017 of Indian Constitution provides power to the
President to modify the provisions of the Constitution by way of an order to apply it to the state
of Jammu & Kashmir. The power to ‘modify’ includes the power to enlarge or add to an
existing provision,18 or to abrogate it, if necessary.19 It is co-extensive with the power to amend
and is not confined to minor alteration only.20
15. Art. 36821 of Indian Constitution defines the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution
and procedure therefor. It lays down the procedure through which amendment of the
constitution can be made. Art. 368 have a non obstante clause making it compulsory to follow
the procedure for the amendment as mentioned in it. The substantive part which provides for
the resultant amendment is the consequence of strict compliance with the mandatory special
procedure prescribed for the exercise of the constituent power and that result does not ensure
except in the manner prescribed.22 The amendment of constitution cannot be made except by
the procedure established under Art. 368.
17
18
Sant Singh v. State of J&K, AIR 1959 J&K 35, pg. 40.
19
Puranlal v. President of India, AIR 1961 SC 1519, pg. 1521.
20
Ibid.
21
22
Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu, AIR 1993 SC 412, para 88.

16. Under Art. 368, all or any provisions of the Constitution may be amended.23 It is not made
subject to the provisions of the Constitution and places only one fetter on the amending power
– procedural fetter24 and “embraces within itself addition, variation and repeal of any provision
to the Constitution.”25
17. In the present case, the President by passing those orders, has done an act within the sole
legislative competence of the Parliament. By ‘adding’ these clauses, the President has amended
the Constitution within the meaning of Article 368,26 with the powers conferred upon him.27
The wording of the Article shows that the Constitution can be amended only by way of
introduction of Bill in either house of the Parliament. Every provision of the Constitution is
open to amendment, provided the basic foundation or structure of the Constitution is not
destroyed.28
18. The non obstante clause in Article 368 is not subject to any other provision of the Constitution
and overrides the power conferred upon the President to make modifications to the Constitution
in relation to the state. The presence of a non obstante clause in Article 370 doesn’t take it
outside amending power and it must be consistent with the foundational principles and basic
features of the Constitution.29 The scope of a non obstante clause doesn’t take it beyond the
amending power under Article 368.30
[II.2] THE PRESIDENTIAL ORDERS VIOLATE THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF
THE CITIZENS OF NATRULAND
19. The Presidential orders passed incorporating the clauses in the Instrument of Accession
between Natruland and Mullu31 violate certain rights recognized at its highest manifestation in
various countries across the world.
23
Wanchoo J., in I.C. Golaknath & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr., AIR 1967 SC 1643.
24
Diwan, Paras, Amending Powers and Constitutional Amendments, pg. 33.
25
Khanna J., in Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr., (1973) 4 SCC 225.
26
Id (Majority judgment).
27
INDIA CONST. art. 370 cl. 1 sub-cl. (d).
28
Sikri J., in Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr., (1973) 4 SCC 225.
29
R.C. Poudyal v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 1804
30
Agarwal J., in R.C. Poudyal v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 1804.
31
Para 11, page 2, Moot Proposition

20. The Universal Declaration on Human Rights recognizes right to equality and all other rights
without any discrimination on the basis of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or
other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.32 It is a well-recognized
human right for a person to move and reside anywhere within the borders of each state.33 Same
rights have also been recognized by the Supreme Court of India. Articles 14 and 19 as
mentioned in Constitution of India do not confer any fanciful rights. They confer rights which
are elementary for the proper and effective functioning of a democracy. They are universally
so regarded, as is evident from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
21. Supreme Court of India has held that all the provisions are subject to amendment except for
those which forms the basic structure of the constitution.34 Basic structure includes right to
equality, freedom to reside and settle in any part of the country and protection of life and
liberty.35 The basic structure doctrine has been recognized even by the Supreme Court of
Bangladesh.36 The word 'amendment' occurring in Article 368 must therefore be construed in
such a manner as to preserve the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution, but not
so as to result in damaging or destroying the structure and identity of the Constitution.37 The
court has said that38:
“Three Articles of our Constitution, and only three, stand between the heaven of
freedom into which Tagore wanted his country to awake and the abyss of
unrestrained power. They are Articles 14, 19 and 21.”
22. Hence, nothing can affect the rights enshrined under Articles 14, 19 and 21.
23. The Presidential order, restricting non-residents of Mullu from purchasing property in that state
and preventing people from staying for more than 3 years, is a direct violation of these two
rights:
32
UNIVERSAL DECLARATIONS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS art. 2.
33
34
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerela, AIR 1973 SC 1461.
35
Minerva Mills Ltd. V. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789.
36
Anwar Hossain Chowdhary v. Bangladesh, (41 DLR 1989 App. Div. 165, 1989 BLD (Spl.) 1).
37
Supra, note 35, para. 13.
38

[II.2.1] VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO EQUALITY
24. Right to equality is enshrined under Art. 1439 of the Indian Constitution which is recognized
and held to be a fundamental right of the citizens of Natruland. Art. 14 states that there should
be equality before law and equal protection of laws. The under-lying object is to secure to all
persons the equality of status and opportunity referred to in the Preamble to the Constitution.
25. Equality before law is a negative concept which ensures that there is no special privilege in
favor of anyone. Equal protection of law is a positive concept which denotes equality of
treatments in equal circumstances. It implies that among equals the law should be equal and
equality administered, that the like should be treated alike without distinction of race, religion,
wealth, social status or political influence.40 Art. 14 forbids class legislation; it doesn’t forbid
reasonable classification of persons. The differentia adopted as the basis of classification must
have a rational or reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the statute in
question.41 The classification should be reasonable and it should be conducive to the
functioning of modern society. 42
26. The citizens of J&K are first and foremost citizens of Union of India.43 There is no such concept
of dual citizenship.44 The State of Jammu & Kashmir has no vestige of sovereignty outside the
Constitution of India and its own Constitution, which is subordinate to the Constitution of
India. It is therefore wholly incorrect to describe it as being sovereign in the sense of its
residents constituting a separate and distinct class in themselves.45
27. Restrictions placed based on such condition is violative of right to equality. Union of Natruland
places a restriction on the non-residents of State of Mullu from buying a property there. By
preventing non-citizens of Mullu from purchasing property in Mullu, it is not creating a
reasonable classification and is subjecting the same class of citizens to differential treatment,
thereby being violative of right to equality.46
39
INDIAN CONST. art. 14.
40
Jagannath Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 1245.
41
Laxmi Khandsari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 873, pg 891.
42
Transport & Dock Workers Union v. Mumbai Port Trust, (2011) 12 SCC 575, para. 16
43
State Bank of India v. Santosh Gupta and Ors., AIR 2017 SC 25, para. 43.
44
Id.
45
Id, at para 43.
46
K. Thimmapa v. Chairman, Central Board of Directors, AIR 2001 SC 467.

[II.2.2] VIOLATIVE OF FREEDOM TO RESIDE AND SETTLE IN ANY PART OF THE
COUNTRY
28. Freedom to reside and settle in any part of the country has been recognized by the UDHR and
is also enshrined under Art. 19(1)(e)47 of the Indian Constitution which is recognized and held
to be a fundamental right of the citizens of Natruland. Art. 19(1)(e) guarantees to every citizen
the right to move freely throughout the territory of India.
29. The State of Mullu places a restriction on the non-residents of the state to stay in its territory
for more than three years. They are restricting the right of a person to reside or settle in any
part of the country as recognized as a fundamental right by the Supreme Court of Natruland.
Hence, such provision violates the fundamental rights of the citizens of Natruland.
30. Article 13 renders void any law which is in violation of Fundamental Rights of the Constitution
of India, but doesn’t apply to an amendment under Article 368. The Presidential orders
incorporating these clauses would fall under the purview of ‘Law’ for this matter as he is an
authority within the meaning of Article 12.48 Clause (3)(a) of Art. 13 of the Constitution of
India therefore makes it clear that not only, but also an order or notification which takes away
or abridges the fundamental rights of the Constitution would be void.49
31. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the Presidential order granting special status to Mullu
and its residents and the restriction placed on the outsiders are in violation of the Fundamental
Rights of the citizens of Natruland and may be struck down by this court.
47
INDIA CONST. art. 19 cl. 1 sub-cl. (e).
48
Mohd. Yakub v. State of J&K, (1968) 2 SCR 227.
49
Union of India v. Col. L.S.N. Murthy, (2012) 1 SCC 718, pg. 723.

ISSUE III – WHETHER RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF THE CITIZENS OF NATRULAND
HAS BEEN INFRINGED.
32. It is contended that the right to privacy of the citizens of Union of Natruland has been infringed.
This contention is sought to be proved by way of analogy on two grounds: [III.1] Right to
privacy has been held at its highest manifestation across the globe and [III.2] Publication of
biometric information along with DNA profile violates right to privacy.
[III .1] RIGHT TO PRIVACY HAS BEEN HELD AT ITS HIGHEST MANIFESTATION.
33. Privacy refers to the reservation of a private space for the individual, described as the right to
be let alone. The concept is founded on the autonomy of the individual. The notion of privacy
enables the individual to assert and control the human element which is inseparable from the
personality of the individual. Privacy enables each individual to take crucial decisions which
find expression in the human personality. It enables individuals to preserve their beliefs,
thoughts, expressions, ideas, ideologies, preferences and choices against societal demands of
homogeneity.50
34. The Greek philosopher Aristotle spoke of a division between the public sphere of political
affairs (which he termed the polis) and the personal sphere of human life (termed oikos).51
Austin in his Lectures on Jurisprudence (1869) spoke of the distinction between the public and
the private realms: jus publicum and jus privatum. Thomas Cooley adopted the phrase “the
right to be let alone”, in his Treatise on the Law of Torts52 in which he discussed personal
immunity and stated that the right of one’s person may be said to be a right of complete
immunity; the right to be alone.53
35. Right to privacy has been recognized from ancient times of Aristotle and Austin, and now have
been incorporated by the various nations as a fundamental right across the globe. The Art. 12
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights54 states that –
50
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., 2017 (10) SCALE 1.
51
Michael C. James, “A Comparative Analysis of the Right to Privacy in the United States, Canada and Europe”,
Connecticut Journal of International Law (Spring 2014), Vol. 29, Issue 2, at page 261
52
Thomas Cooley, Treatise on the Law of Torts (2nd ed. 1988)
53
Id, at page 29.
54

“No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home
or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has
the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”
36. The Supreme Court of United States of America (US) has recognized Right to privacy as an
important right of the citizens of its country. The US Supreme Court has held that Right to
privacy forms an intrinsic part of human life and liberty and has been upheld to be present in
different situation by the way of various judgments. The Court invalidated a state law and
observed that right emanated from “penumbras” of the fundamental constitutional guarantees
and rights in the Bill of Rights, which together create “zones of privacy”, was violated by it.55
37. In the landmark decision on the right to abortion, the court held that The Constitution does not
explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, the Court has
recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy,
does exist under the Constitution.56 In another case, the Court unanimously held that the
warrantless search and seizure of digital contents of a cell phone during an arrest is
unconstitutional as violative of right to privacy.57
38. In Republic of South Africa, the right to privacy has been enshrined in Section 1458 of the Bill
of Rights in the 1996 Constitution. The Constitutional courts of South Africa have upheld that
privacy is an individual condition of life characterized by exclusion from the public and
publicity.59 Privacy recognizes that we all have a right to a sphere of private intimacy and
autonomy which allows us to establish and nurture human relationships without interference
from the outside community.60 Private and confidential medical information contains highly
sensitive and personal information about individuals. The more intimate that information, the
more important it is in fostering privacy, dignity and autonomy that an individual makes the
primary decision whether to release the information.61
39. In Canada, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms of 1982 (“the Charter”) does not
explicitly provide for a right to privacy, certain sections of the Charter have been relied on by
55
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US 479 (1965).
56
Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113 (1973).
57
Riley v. California, 573 US __ (2014)
58
SOUTH AFRICAN CONST. Sec. 14.
59
National Media Ltd v. Jooste, 1996 (3) SA 262 (A).
60
National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v. Minister of Justice, 1999 (1) SA 6 (CC).
61
NM and Others v. Smith and Others, 2007 (5) SA 250 (CC).

the Supreme Court of Canada to recognize a right to privacy. The Supreme Court of Canada
has recognized the right to privacy.62 Privacy is at the heart of liberty in a modern
state...Grounded in man's physical and moral autonomy, privacy is essential for the well-being
of the individual.63 In another case related to informational privacy, the courts held that
anonymity may, depending on the totality of the circumstances, be the foundation of a privacy
interest.64
40. In Republic of India, the Supreme Court has recently recognized right to privacy as a
fundamental right in a landmark judgment65 overturning the earlier judgments66 which said
that right to privacy is not a fundamental right guaranteed under Constitution on India. The
court held that privacy is a constitutionally protected right which emerges primarily from the
guarantee of life and personal liberty in the Constitution. Elements of privacy also arise in
varying contexts from the other facets of freedom and dignity recognized and guaranteed by
the fundamental rights.67 Human dignity is construed to be intrinsic to and inseparable from
human existence.68 It is the duty of the State not only to protect the human dignity but to
facilitate it by taking positive steps in that direction.69
41. Right to privacy forms an intrinsic part of human life of the people and have been recognized
by various authorities across the globe. The Supreme Court has declared that all human rights
known to the civil society are part and parcel of fundamental rights of any person who is on
the soil of Natruland. It has recognized that such rights would be available to all the citizens
and it is the duty of the state to protect such right and is held to be of the widest amplitude.
Hence, it is submitted that the citizens have been conferred with the right to privacy and it is
the duty of the state to preserve such right.
62
Hunter v. Southam Inc, [1984] 2 SCR 145.
63
Her Majesty, The Queen v. Brandon Roy Dyment, [1988] 2 SCR 417.
64
R v Spencer, (2014) SCC 43.
65
Supra, note 50.
66
M P Sharma v. Satish Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi, (1954) SCR 1077; Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar
Pradesh, (1964) 1 SCR 332.
67
68
M Nagaraj v Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212, para 21.
69
Id, at page 243-244 (para 26).

[III.2] PUBLICATION OF BIOMETRIC INFORMATION ALONG WITH DNA
PROFILE VIOLATES RIGHT TO PRIVACY.
42. It is contended before this court that the right to privacy has been violated by the respondents
in the present case. Mulluworks, a corporation working in the area of data collection and data
banking and selling violated the right to privacy of the citizens of the Union of Natruland by
fraudulently taking the Multiplying Innate Nano Inhibitors (MINI) data prior to its uploading
on the MINI server from the banks by giving hefty sums to the hospitals and selling them to
its clients.
43. Right to privacy has been recognized as a fundamental right by the Supreme Court. Supreme
Court is said to be the protector and guarantor of the Fundamental Rights, and it cannot
consistently with the responsibility so laid upon it, refuse to entertain applications seeking
protection against infringement of such rights.70
44. In order to ascertain the violation of fundamental right of right to privacy, invasion of privacy
should be there. It is contended that procurement of biometric information along with DNA
profile and trading it for personal purpose amounts to invasion of someone’s privacy. An
unauthorized parting of the medical records of an individual which have been furnished to a
hospital will amount to an invasion of privacy.71
45. The concept of “private life” covers the physical and psychological integrity of a person.
Elements such as, for example, gender identification, name and sexual orientation and sexual
life fall within the personal sphere protected by right to privacy. Beyond a person's name, his
or her private and family life may include other means of personal identification and of linking
to a family. Information about the person's health is an important element of private life.72
46. Given the nature and the amount of personal information contained in cellular samples, their
retention per se must be regarded as interfering with the right to respect for the private lives of
the individuals concerned. That only a limited part of this information is actually extracted or
used by the authorities through DNA profiling and that no immediate detriment is caused in a
particular case does not change this conclusion. The DNA profiles' capacity to provide a means
of identifying genetic relationships between individuals is in itself sufficient to conclude that
70
Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124.
71
Supra, note 50, at para 182.
72
S and Marper v. United Kingdom, [2008] ECHR 1581.

their retention interferes with the right to the private life of the individuals concerned. The
possibility the DNA profiles create for inferences to be drawn as to ethnic origin makes their
retention all the more sensitive and susceptible of affecting the right to private life.
47. Private and confidential medical information contains highly sensitive and personal
information about individuals. Individuals value the privacy of confidential medical
information because of the vast number of people who could have access to the information
and the potential harmful effects that may result from disclosure. The lack of respect for private
medical information and its subsequent disclosure may result in fear jeopardizing an
individual’s right to make certain fundamental choices that he/she has a right to make. There
is therefore a strong privacy interest in maintaining confidentiality.73
48. In a case, the UK Supreme Court, by a majority held that the police force's policy of retaining
DNA evidence in the absence of 'exceptional circumstances' was unlawful and a violation of
right to privacy.74 Retention of biometric information violate the right to privacy without any
authority, the trading of biometric information without the consent would also amount to
infringement of right to privacy.
49. The biometric information along with DNA profile fraudulently procured by Mulluworks is
very sensitive information and is capable enough to rule out lot of information about such
person. Hence, procurement of such information and trading with it violates right to privacy.
50. Every citizen of the Natruland have right to life and personal liberty. Right to life and personal
liberty as recognized by the Supreme Court of India have been interpreted widely and its scope
is not restricted to certain aspects. Right to life and personal liberty includes right to
livelihood75, right to education76, right to privacy77, etc. Such right have always been subject
to certain restriction. The courts have held that such restrictions imposed should be just, fair
and reasonable.78 The courts have asserted that such restrictions should be “right, just and fair”
and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive. In order that the restriction be right, just and fair, it
must conform to natural justice.79
73
NM and Others v. Smith and Others, 278 2007 (5) SA 250 (CC).
74
R v. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, 241 [2011] UKSC 21.
75
Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 545.
76
Unnikrishnan v State of Andhra Pradesh, (1993) 1 SCC 645.
77
Supra, note 50, para 188.
78
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.
79
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569.

51. Like other rights which form part of the right to life and personal liberty, privacy is not an
absolute right. A law which encroaches upon privacy will have to withstand the touchstone of
permissible restrictions on fundamental rights. In the context of right to life and personal liberty
an invasion of privacy must be justified on the basis of a law which stipulates a procedure
which is fair, just and reasonable. The law must also be valid with reference to the
encroachment on life and personal liberty. An invasion of life or personal liberty must meet
the three-fold requirement of (i) legality, which postulates the existence of law; (ii) need,
defined in terms of a legitimate state aim; and (iii) proportionality which ensures a rational
nexus between the objects and the means adopted to achieve them.80
52. It is submitted that the above test can be applied to the act of the Mulluworks of procuring the
information and trading it with its clients. Firstly, the act or procuring and trading of the MINI
data was not legal as it was taken from the hospitals fraudulently. Secondly, the need to procure
the data was for the personal needs and not for the legislative state aim. Thirdly, there was no
rationality between the object and the means adopted as it involved taking of someone’s private
biometric information with wrongful means. Hence, the act of Mulluworks violated the right
to privacy as the act of the Mulluworks doesn’t qualify as a just, fair and reasonable restriction
80
Supra, note 1, para 188.

PRAYER
Wherefore, it is humbly prayed to this Hon’ble court that in light of the issues raised, arguments
advanced and authorities cited, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
1. ALLOW the Transfer Petition No. ____ of 2017

2. QUASH the Presidential Orders to the extent that they give special status to the State
of Mullu and its residents.
3. DECLARE that the acts of Mulluworks violate the FR of Privacy.
4. ORDER Mulluworks not to share private information procured from the hospitals.
Or pass any such order, direction or relief as it may deem fit in order to uphold the principles of
justice, equity and good conscience.
And for this act of kindness, the Respondent shall forever humbly pray.
Counsel for Petitioner

Petitioners - 11th Nalsar Justice B.R. Sawhny Memorial Moot Court Competition, 2017 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Petitioners - 11th Nalsar Justice B.R. Sawhny Memorial Moot Court Competition, 2017 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TEAM CODE: P44

11th NALSAR JUSTICE B.R. SAWHNY MEMORIAL MOOT COURT

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF NATRULAND

TRANSFER PETITION NO. ___/ 2017

WRIT PETITION (C) NO.___/2017

SUO MOTO PIL NO.___/ 2017

MR. GULLA (Petitioner)

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION

JUSTICES OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF NATRULAND

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ ii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................ iv

II BOOKS: .............................................................................................................................. viii

III LEGISLATIONS:............................................................................................................. viii

STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................................. x

ISSUES RAISED .......................................................................................................................... xii

SUMMARY OF ARGUEMENTS .............................................................................................. xiii

ISSEE I: WHETHER THE TRANSFER PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE AND MERITS

ARGUMENTS ADVANDED ........................................................................................................ 1

[I] WHETHER THE TRANSFER PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE AND MERITS OF THE

[I.1] TRANSFER SHOULD BE MADE AS THERE EXIST GRAVE THREAT TO THE

ISSUE II: WHETHER THE PRESIDENTIAL ORDERS GRANTING SPECIAL STATUS TO

Page | ii MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

[II.1] THE PRESIDENT DOESN’T POSSESS LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE TO PASS

[II.2] THE PRESIDENTIAL ORDERS VIOLATE THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE

[II.2.1] VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO EQUALITY ................................................................ 8

[II.2.2] VIOLATIVE OF FREEDOM TO RESIDE AND SETTLE IN ANY PART OF THE

ISSUE III – WHETHER RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF THE CITIZENS OF NATRULAND HAS

[III.2] PUBLICATION OF BIOMETRIC INFORMATION ALONG WITH DNA PROFILE

Page | iii MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

ABBREVIATION ACTUAL TERM

AIR All India Reporter

DLR Delhi Law Review

ECHR European Convention on Human Rights

J&K Jammu and Kashmir

Page | iv MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court of Canada

UKSC United Kingdom Supreme Court

Page | v MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

Page | vi MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

22. M Nagaraj v Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212, para 21………………………………..12

Page | vii MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

1. Jain, M.P., Indian Constitutional Law (7th Ed, 2014).

1. The Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia, 1932

Page | viii MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

Page | ix MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

MR. GULLA AND MULLUWORKS

Page | xi MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

ISSUE I: WHETHER THE TRANSFER PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE AND MERITS

OF THE CASE CAN BE HEARD BY THE COURT.

ISSUE II: WHETHER THE PRESIDENTIAL ORDERS GRANTING SPECIAL STATUS

TO MULLU AND ITS CITIZENS ARE VALID.

ISSUE III – WHETHER RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF THE CITIZENS OF NATRULAND

HAS BEEN INFRINGED.

Page | xii MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

ISSEE I: WHETHER THE TRANSFER PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE AND MERITS

ISSUE II: WHETHER THE PRESIDENTIAL ORDERS GRANTING SPECIAL STATUS

ISSUE III: WHETHER RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF THE CITIZENS OF NATRULAND

Page | xiii MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

[I] WHETHER THE TRANSFER PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE AND MERITS OF

THE CASE CAN BE HEARD BY THE COURT.