Argument Advanced

Issue 01. WHETHER THE WRIT FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF CONSTITUTION

OF INDIA IS MAINTANABLE OR NOT.

The counsel for the petitioner humbly submits that the writ petition filed by the Petitioner is
maintainable in the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution of India1.
Article 32 of the constitution, gives the right to an individual to move the Supreme Court if
they find their fundamental rights to have been infringed. In this case, there is a clear
violation of the petitioner’s right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a)
of the Constitution of India2 and the concept of natural justice was violated.

1. In Vinod Dua v. Union of India3, a FIR was filed against Mr Dua for filming a video
criticizing the government’s response to the COVID-19 outbreak. He then filed a writ
petition under Art 32 against the FIR. The writ petition was held maintainable under Art.
32 and the judgment were in the favor of the petitioner.
The case draws a significant similarity with Dr. Roy’s cases as both the petitioner’s and
Mr. Dua’s freedom of speech and expression, which is guaranteed under Art. 19 (1) (a),
was infringed for expressing their honest views and opinion. Hence, the writ petition
should be maintainable in the Hon’ble court under Art. 32.

2. In, landmark case of Romesh Thapar v. the State of Madras4, the court decided that the
judgement of High Court was violation petitioner’s fundamental right under Article 19(1)
(a) of Constitution of India. In case of Dr. Abhishek Roy, also his Fundamental Right
under Article 19(1)(a) is violated by High Court of Delhi. Hence, the writ petition should
be maintainable in the Hon’ble court under Art. 32.

3. In, Canara Bank v. Shri Debasis Das5, the apex court in its judgement observed that
notice is the first limb of natural justice. As no notice was given to the petitioner the
concept of natural justice was not followed. Hence, the writ petition should be
maintainable in the Hon’ble court.

1
Article 32, The Constitution of India, 1950
2
Article 19 (1) (a), The Constitution of India, 1950
3
Vinod Dua v UOI, 2021 SCC Online SC 414
4
Romesh Thapar v. the State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124
5
Canara Bank v. Shri Debasis Das, (2003) 4 SCC 557
4. The violation of the principle of natural justice is one of the most basic grounds to file a
writ petition. The landmark judgement of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India6, which was
evolution of concept of natural justice in India it was held that for natural justice to be
followed basic requirements should be fulfilled i.e., notice, fair hearing and absence of
bias. The petitioner believes that in his case natural justice was not followed. Hence, the
writ petition should be maintainable in the Hon’ble court.

6
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 579