TC-04

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF MEHULA

(ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

IN THE MATTER OF W.P. NO. —------------- OF 2023

COUNTER FILED FOR CASE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Bhamini Fathima….………………………………………………………………………….…… Petitioner

V.

Republic of Estancia,....……..……….....…………………………………………………...… Respondent

Rep. by its Secretary,
Department of Internal Security.

UPON THE SUBMISSION TO HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF MEHULA

ARGUMENT NOTE ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSELS FOR THE RESPONDENT

ARGUMENT NOTE ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 Saveetha School of Law - Multi Moot - January 2023 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

TABLE OF CASES……………………….………………………………………... 6

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ……………………………………………….. 8

STATEMENT OF FACTS ………………………………………………………… 9

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

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

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ……………………………………………………… 12

PRAYER……………………………………………………………………………..17

Argument Note on behalf of Respondent.

 Saveetha School of Law - Multi Moot - January 2023 2

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATION EXTENSION

& And

AIR All India Reporter

Anr. Another

Art. Article

Cr.P.A Criminal Procedure(Identification) Act

Const. Constitution

etc. Etcetera

HC High Court

Hon’ble Honorable

i.e. that is

Ors. Others

Pvt. Private

Rt. Right

SC Supreme Court

Sec. Section

UOI Union of India

v. Versus

W.P. Writ Petition

Argument Note on behalf of Respondent.

 Saveetha School of Law - Multi Moot - January 2023 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES
● The Constitution of Estancia , 1950
● Criminal Procedure(Identification) Act, 2022

BOOKS AND DIGESTS

● Introduction to the Constitution of Estancia : Book by Durga Das
● V.N. Shukla's Constitution of Estancia : M.P.Singh
● Right to Life and Personal Liberty : Dr. Shilpa Jain
● Right to Life and Personal Liberty (Commentary and CaseMaterials) : Authored by V.
Parabrahma Sastry

DICTIONARY, ONLINE DATABASE & WEBSITES

● B.A. Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th ed. (2004)
● www.manupatrafast.com
● SCC Online, http://www.scconline.co.in.
● www.sci.gov.in
● Manupatra Online Resources, http://www.manupatra.com.
● Estancian Kanoon, https://Estanciankanoon.org/
● LexisNexis Legal, http://www.lexisnexis.com/in/legal.
● 19th BlueBook Citations.

Argument Note on behalf of Respondent.

 Saveetha School of Law - Multi Moot - January 2023 4

TABLE OF CASES

1. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1

2. Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India 2022 SCC OnLine SC 533.

3. Kedarnath v. State of West Bengal AIR 1954 SC 660: 1954 Cri LJ 1679.

4. Vaishali S. Ganorkar vs. Satish Keshavrao Ganorkar 2012 (5) Bom CR 210.

5. Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra (1994) 4 SCC 602 : (1994 AIR SCW 3699 : AIR

1994 SC 2623 : 1995 Cri LJ 517).

6. UIDAI v. CBI (2017) 7 SCC 157.

7. Narayan Dutt Tiwari v. Rohit Shekhar (2012) 12 SCC 554.

8. Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. 1963 AIR 1295, 1964 SCR (1) 332.

9. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248.

10. State of A.P. v. Challa Ramakrishna Reddy (2000) 5 SCC 712

11. Asha Sharma v. Chandigarh Administration, (2011) 10 SCC 86.

12. E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N., (1974) 4 SCC 3

13. K.R. Lakshmanan v. State of T.N. 1996 AIR 1153, 1996 SCC (2) 226.

14. Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) 9 SCC1.

Argument Note on behalf of Respondent.

 Saveetha School of Law - Multi Moot - January 2023 5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Counsel for the Petitioner humbly submits to the Honourable High Court of Estancia that it has
jurisdiction to inquire and try this case, under Article 226 of the Constitution of Estancia, 1950

Power of High Courts to issue certain writs.

(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the
territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority,
including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or
writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto
and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and
for any other purpose,
(2) The power conferred by clause ( 1 ) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government,
authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation
to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of
such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of
such person is not within those territories.

Argument Note on behalf of Respondent.

 Saveetha School of Law - Multi Moot - January 2023 6

SUMMARY OF FACTS

1. Background of Petitioner herein - Mrs. Bhamini Fathima works full time with She-Taxi company
as a driver. She has gained a lot of attention in the histogram platform (social media) where she has
around 50k followers. She has moulded herself into a woman influencer as a lady taxi driver, who
inspires many young girls and women of the present generation. She is married with Mr.Chandra
and has a daughter.
2. Mr.Lucky Singh’s Arrival
a. 18/10/2022,10:00am - Petitioner was assigned to pick up Mr. Lucky Singh, one of the
follower of Petitioner in Histogram from the airport. Mr. Lucky Singh keeps chatting
continuously throughout the trip which added to Bhamini’s dismay. Mr. Lucky Singh
conveyed his wishes and stated that he has recently bought an apartment in the
neighborhood, which coincidentally happened to be one of the apartments in Bhamini’s gated
community.
b. 18/10/2022,04:00pm - Mr.Lucky Singh visited petitioner’s apartment without any prior
invite for celebration with some delicious food for Petitioner’s family. Petitioner, was highly
annoyed at Lucky's eagerness to barge into her home when all she wants is to celebrate her
anniversary with her husband and daughter.
3. Murder of Mr.Chandra and his daughter.
a. 18/10/2022,06:00 pm - Petitioner agreed to help as Mr.Lucky asked and informed him that
she will drop him at the airport after offering her evening prayers.Meanwhile it ends up
killing Mr. Chandra and his daughter, cold-bloodedly, hide their body in a giant body bag and
hide it in the trunk of Bhamini’s car.
b. 18/10/2022,06:30pm - Both head to the airport to drop Lucky off. Bhamini comes back. She
files a missing person report, and soon The police found Chandra’s body in Bhamini’s car
trunk and suspected and arrested her. During investigation the police suspected and arrested
Mr. Lucky Singh.
c. The trial is pending before the Magistrate Court, resisted herself from giving measurements
under Criminal Procedure( Identification ) Act,2022
4. Petitioner approaching this Court - Challenging the Criminal Procedure( Identification ) Act 2022
and seek Judicial Review of Sections 2(1)(a) (iii), 2(1) (b), 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the Act.

Argument Note on behalf of Respondent.

 Saveetha School of Law - Multi Moot - January 2023 7

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

Issue - 1 :

Whether the Criminal Procedure ( Identification ) Act 2022 is devoid of substantive due process
and ultra vires to the constitution?

Issue - 2 :

Whether the rights of the accused person are infringed under this Act ?

Issue - 3 :

Whether this Act envisages greater Arbitrary powers to the investigative agencies ?

Argument Note on behalf of Respondent.

 Saveetha School of Law - Multi Moot - January 2023 8

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Issue - 1 : Whether the Criminal Procedure ( Identification ) Act 2022 is devoid of substantive
due process and ultra vires to the constitution?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble High Court of Mehula that the Criminal Procedure
(Identification) Act, 2022 is constitutionally valid and the accused can be compelled to give
measurements and biological samples to the jail authorities for the reason: Firstly, The act does
not violate any of the constitutional provision. Secondly, Measurement for Identification
purposes is not hit by provisions of Part III of the constitution. Thirdly, In the light of data
protection laws in Mehula, the right to privacy will not be infringed and lastly by applying the
Doctrine of Presumption of constitutionality.

Issue - 2 : Whether the rights of the accused person are infringed under this Act ?

The Prisoners' legislation which is followed in the the state was ruled by the court so not ultra
vires to the Constitutional provisions.1 Where the appellant refused to provide his hair samples
to the investigating offices, it was held that asking for hair samples is not contradictory to
provisions of the constitution. Many Courts accepted such identifying samples as constitutional,
even before the passage of the act. Hence, based on the above remark, it may be concluded that
courts deemed such identifying samples permissible even before the act's enactment.

Issue - 3 : Whether this Act envisages greater Arbitrary powers to the investigative agencies ?

The petitioners humbly submit that the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 is not
arbitrary, excessive but drafted with reasonable, proportionate and substantive due process and
in valuation of fundamental rights of the citizens of India and other Constitutional provisions as
well as of the basic structure of the Constitution of India, and thus not liable to be struck down
by the court.

1
Amrit Singh v. State of Punjab (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 41.

Argument Note on behalf of Respondent.

 Saveetha School of Law - Multi Moot - January 2023 9

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Issue - 1 : Whether the Criminal Procedure ( Identification ) Act 2022 is devoid of substantive
due process and ultra vires to the constitution?

1. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble High Court of Mehula that the Criminal Procedure
(Identification) Act, 2022 is constitutionally valid and the accused can be compelled to give
measurements and biological samples to the jail authorities for the reason: Firstly, The act does
not violate any of the constitutional provision. Secondly, Measurement for Identification
purposes is not hit by provisions of Part III of the constitution. Thirdly, In the light of data
protection laws in Mehula, the right to privacy will not be infringed and lastly by applying the
Doctrine of Presumption of constitutionality.

A. The Act does not violate article 14 and is hence not arbitrary.

2. It was held that where the decision-making process is followed, without the recording of
reasons, such act will be construed under “arbitrariness”2.
3. In this situation, the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, was designed to allow the
gathering, processing, and storage of biometric and personal data of everyone apprehended by
executive authorities, including prisoners, and was a revision of the 102-year-old colonial
legislation of the Prisoners Act.
4. 3. A three-judge bench of this Court knocked down a plenary statute (Tamil Nadu Act, 1986) on
the grounds that it was arbitrary and hence violated Article 14 in K.R. Lakshmanan v. State of
T.N.3 The State Government's declaration of horse racing as a "public purpose" was determined
to be arbitrary and in conflict with the 1974 Act's Goal (which had declared betting on horse
racing as an illegal activity). "Arbitrariness is inscribed big on the face of the provisions of the
1986 Act," the court said.
5. Following this decision, in State of A.P. v/s McDowell & Co.4, a discordant note was struck. It
was concluded that the power of Parliament or state legislatures can be limited in two ways.

2
Asha Sharma v. Chandigarh Administration, (2011) 10 SCC 86.
3
K.R. Lakshmanan v. State of T.N.1996 AIR 1153, 1996 SCC (2) 226.
4
State of A.P. v/s McDowell & Co.,1996 AL 1627.

Argument Note on behalf of Respondent.

 Saveetha School of Law - Multi Moot - January 2023 10

Firstly, a lack of legislative competence and secondly, a violation of any of the fundamental
rights listed in Part III of the Constitution.
6. In the present case, the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act does not satisfy both the reasons
mentioned in the preceding lines of the case, since the law is made following the legislative
competence and passed by Parliament. Furthermore, as established above, it does not violate
Part III of the Constitution as it is not arbitrary and it provides provisions for speedy trial and no
accused can be forced to give measurements, it is only at the satisfaction of the magistrate that a
person as per Section 3, 4 can be compelled to give measurements and thus cannot be
considered unconstitutional.
D. The Doctrine of Presumption of Constitutionality is applied.
7. The doctrine of ‘presumption of constitutionality is a legal doctrine used by courts during
statutory interpretation — the process by which courts interpret and apply a law passed by the
legislature, such as Parliament5.
8. The rule-making authority's legislature is believed to approve legislation that does not contradict
or violate the constitution.
9. As a result, unless a statute or statutory regulation contradicts the basic rights protected under
Part III of the Constitution, there is a presumption in favour of its validity.
10. The Supreme Court in the 1992-case6 opined that the court should not interpret a statutory
provision, unless required by its language, in a way that would involve its unconstitutionality.
11. A11-Judges Bench had opined that the real test of constitutionality lays upon the “real impact”
of the legislation on the life of a person and not on the objective of such legislation.7
12. In this case, the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Legislation will have an influence on the
time frame of the proceedings since the scope of measurement has been expanded. This act will
aid in the avoidance of delay in justice and will facilitate a speedy trial. Physical and biological
samples can be delivered as legally accepted evidence. These assist investigative agencies in
determining an accuser’s crimes, aid in rapid prosecution and conviction, give speedy justice,
and function as a deterrent for future criminal growing trends in the criminal world.

E. In the light of Data Protection Laws in Estancia, the Right to Privacy will not be
infringed :

5
Marathe, Explained: Presumption of Constitutionality in the case of new citizenship (Jan, 13, 2020 , 07:31 AM)
https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/presumption-of-constitutionality-in-the-case-of-the-newcitizenship-law-621196
6
ML Kamra v New India Assurance 1992 AIR 1072.
7
RC Cooper v. Union of India (1970) 1 SCC 248.

Argument Note on behalf of Respondent.

 Saveetha School of Law - Multi Moot - January 2023 11

13. The right to privacy has been subject to judicial interpretation since it is neither evident nor
stated in the Indian Constitution. Through judicial interpretation of the fundamental rights, the
right to privacy has been brought within the ambit of the basic right.
14. The Supreme Court reviewed whether the 'right to privacy is a basic right for the first time in the
case of M.P. Sharma & Ors. v. Satish Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi and Ors8.The
Supreme Court ruled that the authority of search and seizure did not violate any constitutional
restrictions. It was claimed that the right of search and seizure is vital and an overriding
authority granted to the state by law to ensure social security.
15. As is the case with the current legislation, these laws should not be viewed as a danger to the
constitution when used to seek and investigate an accused in order to safeguard social security.
16. In Justice K.S. Puttaswami and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors, The Hon'ble Supreme Court's
decision in this case established that the right to privacy is guaranteed or enshrined in Articles
14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court's ruling in this case also gives
citizens the right to seek legal remedies if their data privacy rights are violated.
17. As of present, there is no explicit data protection legislation or regulation in India. However,
there are certain statutes and acts that have provisions that address this issue, including:
17.1. Constitution of Estancia- The Constitution protects data privacy by recognising the right
to privacy. The right to privacy has been declared an inherent component of Article 21
by the Supreme Court, which protects private data as a citizen's private property.
Because the database's protection is within the right to livelihood, it cannot be infringed
or taken away unless it is done so in accordance with the law.
17.2. Estancia Penal Code- To deter data theft, the Indian Penal Code has been revised and
enforced. It works well in terms of preventing data theft. Misappropriation of property,
theft and criminal breach of trust are all crimes punishable by imprisonment and a fine
under this act. Though these offences only apply to movable property, the Indian Penal
Code recognises data as part of the definition of "movable property," which includes
corporeal property of "every description" except land and things that are permanently
attached to the earth, and thus data theft is a crime under the Indian Penal Code. As a
result, because computer data or databases are moveable, they are protected by the IPC.
17.3. Information Technology Act- The Information Technology Act of 2000 was the only
piece of legislation introduced by Parliament to create a legal foundation for the digital

8
M.P. Sharma vs Satish Chandra AIR 1954 SC 300.

Argument Note on behalf of Respondent.

 Saveetha School of Law - Multi Moot - January 2023 12

era as a whole. Also included in this statute is data protection. It establishes a legal
framework to prevent database misuse and imposes severe penalties for cybercrime.

Issue - 2 : Whether the rights of the accused person are infringed under this Act ?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble High Court of Mehula that the Criminal Procedure
(Identification) Act, 2022 is constitutionally valid and the accused can be compelled to give measurements
and biological samples to the jail authorities for the reason: Firstly, The act does not violate any of the
constitutional provision. Secondly, Measurement for Identification purposes is not hit by provisions of Part
III of the constitution. Thirdly, In the light of data protection laws in Estancia, the right to privacy will not
be infringed and lastly by applying the Doctrine of Presumption of constitutionality.

The Act does not violates the Article 20(3) of Constitution

The Prisoners' legislation which is followed in the the state was ruled by the court so not ultra vires to the
Constitutional provisions.9 Where the appellant refused to provide his hair samples to the investigating
offices, it was held that asking for hair samples is not contradictory to provisions of the constitution. Many
Courts accepted such identifying samples as constitutional, even before the passage of the act. Hence, based
on the above remark, it may be concluded that courts deemed such identifying samples permissible even
before the act's enactment.

8. The Delhi High Court10 ruled that if the charges are framed after investigation, during the court’s
proceedings, the court is of the opinion that the voice samples ought to be taken for establishing identity,
then directions can be given on the condition that voice sample is taken only for identification purpose.
Moreover, it should not consist of an inculpatory statement to violate Article 20(3) of the Constitution.

9. In the State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad11 the scope of protection in Article 20(3), dealing with
self-incrimination by the accused person, was defined. Self-incrimination refers to conveying information in

9
Amrit Singh v. State of Punjab (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 41.
10
Rakesh Bisht v. C.B.I. 2007 (1) JCC 482 and MANU/DE/0338/2007
11
State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad AIR 1961 SC 1808.

Argument Note on behalf of Respondent.

 Saveetha School of Law - Multi Moot - January 2023 13

personal knowledge of a person and is not confined to merely producing documents in court which may
throw a light on any of the points in the controversy, but which do not contain any statement of the accused
based on his personal knowledge. For example, the accused person may be in possession of a document
which is in his writing or which contains his signature or his thumb impression. The production of the
document in his writing, or which contains his signature or thumb impression.

10. Giving thumb-impression or impressions of foot or palm or fingers or specimen writings or showing
parts of the body by way of identification are not included in the expression "to be a witness" in Article
20(3). Therefore, extracting a voice sample of an accused by the police during the investigation is not hit by
this Article.

11. In the case of Selvi v. The State of Karnataka,12 the Court evaluated the protective breadth of
the right against self-incrimination, namely whether it extends to the investigative stage, and concluded that
Article 20 covers even police investigations. After citing extensively from the Kathi Kalu Oghad case, it
was noted that two premises clearly define the extent of 'testimonial coercion.' The first is that, in most
cases, oral or written remarks conveying a person's intimate knowledge of important facts amount to
"personal testimony," and so fall within the scope of Article 20.

12. As a result of the foregoing considerations, it may be established that measurements such as biometrics
and other biological data can be obtained through Bamini for the sake of identification. The two premises
set out in the prior decisions are not fulfilled by this conduct, because no such measures or procedures are
utilised to assess the accused's "personal knowledge," and measurements are solely obtained for
identification purposes. As a result, such measures will not be subject to the constraints imposed by Article
20(3).

13. Furthermore, under Section 3 of the Act, “if so required, allow taking such measurements” entail that it
is at the discretion of the person under this section to give such measurements. Furthermore, the proviso
expressly states that any person “arrested” is not obliged to allow the taking of his/her biological samples.
Hence, the act shall not be considered intrusive and against the right to privacy and self- incrimination as it
is upon the discretion of the arrested person to allow for the taking of such measurements.

15. But in the present case, Bamini can be compelled to give such measurements in this case because, as a

12
Selvi vs. State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263.

Argument Note on behalf of Respondent.

 Saveetha School of Law - Multi Moot - January 2023 14

convicted person, he cannot exercise his right to refuse to allow such measurements under section 3
provision , which expressly states that "arrested" persons may not be required to allow taking such
biological samples, but Andy is a convicted person,11 and hence is bound to give the measurements
required for investigation by the police officer.

16. As a result, the petitioners claim, that the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act in the absence of a
Data Protection Law will be considered unconstitutional can be shown to be improper on the basis that there
exist data protection regulations to protect citizens' rights, and so the Criminal Procedure (Identification)
Act cannot be regarded unconstitutional, based on the considerations given above.

Issue - 3 : Whether this Act envisages greater Arbitrary powers to the investigative agencies ?

18. Under Section 5, the magistrate is authorised to ask for measurement only after having been satisfied
regarding the need for such measurement for investigation purposes. This demonstrates that the law
is not arbitrary in nature, because an arrested person can only be asked to give measurements for the
purpose of a criminal investigation after the magistrate has been satisfied, and such measurements
would not be construed as testimonial compulsion under Article 20 (3) because they are not within
the accuser’s personal knowledge.13
19. Section 2(h), Section 53, Section 311A, and Section 54A14 of the Criminal Procedure Code also
grant such authority.
20. Because voice samples, iris, and retina fall under the category of physical qualities, Section 53 has
been given a narrow interpretation to cover physical evidence.
21. As a result, under Section 53 of the Code, the Magistrate has supplementary or implied powers to
order a person to provide a voice sample and other physical evidence in order to facilitate the
inquiry.15
22. Hence it can be observed from the abovementioned statements that such measurements are not
arbitrary in nature as a person is compelled under this section only after the satisfaction of the
magistrate that their requirement of such measurements is for the purpose of the inquiry.
23. It was held that where the decision-making process is followed, without the recording of
reasons, such act will be construed under “arbitrariness”16.

13
Ritesh Sinha v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (2019) 8 SCC 1.
14
Kymlickan Code of Criminal Procedure Act, Acts of Parliament, 1973
15
Selvi v. the State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263,
16
Asha Sharma v. Chandigarh Administration, (2011) 10 SCC 86.

Argument Note on behalf of Respondent.

 Saveetha School of Law - Multi Moot - January 2023 15

24. In this situation, the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, was designed to allow the
gathering, processing, and storage of biometric and personal data of everyone apprehended by
executive authorities, including prisoners, and was a revision of the 102-year-old colonial
legislation of the Prisoners Act.
25. 3. A three-judge bench of this Court knocked down a plenary statute (Tamil Nadu Act, 1986) on
the grounds that it was arbitrary and hence violated Article 14 in K.R. Lakshmanan v. State of
T.N.17 The State Government's declaration of horse racing as a "public purpose" was determined
to be arbitrary and in conflict with the 1974 Act's Goal (which had declared betting on horse
racing as an illegal activity). "Arbitrariness is inscribed big on the face of the provisions of the
1986 Act," the court said.
26. Following this decision, in State of A.P. v/s McDowell & Co.18, a discordant note was struck. It
was concluded that the power of Parliament or state legislatures can be limited in two ways.
Firstly, a lack of legislative competence and secondly, a violation of any of the fundamental
rights listed in Part III of the Constitution.
27. In the present case, the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act does not satisfy both the reasons
mentioned in the preceding lines of the case, since the law is made following the legislative
competence and passed by Parliament. Furthermore, as established above, it does not violate
Part III of the Constitution as it is not arbitrary and it provides provisions for speedy trial and no
accused can be forced to give measurements, it is only at the satisfaction of the magistrate that a
person as per Section 3, 4 can be compelled to give measurements and thus cannot be
considered unconstitutional.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

17
K.R. Lakshmanan v. State of T.N.1996 AIR 1153, 1996 SCC (2) 226.
18
State of A.P. v/s McDowell & Co.,1996 AL 1627.

Argument Note on behalf of Respondent.

 Saveetha School of Law - Multi Moot - January 2023 16

In light of the of the case, the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the counsel on
behalf of the Respondent humbly pray before the Hon’ble High Court of Mehula to kindly adjudge and
declare that:

● The Criminal Procedure ( Identification ) Act 2022 is not devoid of substantive due process and
not ultra vires to the constitution.
● The rights of the accused person are not infringed under this Criminal Procedure (
Identification ) Act 2022.
● This Act envisages greater no Arbitrary powers to the investigative agencies.

AND/OR

Pass any other order which the bench deems fit in the best interest of Justice, Equity and Good
Conscience, and for this act of kindness the Counsels on behalf of the Respondent as in duty bound shall
forever pray.

All of which is respectfully submitted by

——————————————.
Sd/-

Counsels for Respondent.

Argument Note on behalf of Respondent.