REVA UNIVERSITY Intra Moot Court Competation,2021

Organized by SCHOOL OF LEGAL STUDIES

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF EMPIRE

IN THE MATTER OF

Amber University & Ors………………………………………………………….Petitioner

V.

Government of Empire……………………………………………………………..Respondent

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

1
 TABEL OF CONTENTS

1.Index of authorities …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 4

2.Statement of jurisdiction …………………………………………………………………………………….5

3.Statement of facts ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………6

4.Statement of issues ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………8

5.Summary of arguments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………9

6. Advanced arguments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..11

7. Prayer ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………19

2
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

• COE - Constitution of Empire

• SC - Supreme court
• IPC - The Indian penal code
• CPC -Code of Criminal Procedure
• SEC - section
• ART – Article
• V. – versus
• Hon’ble - Honourable

3
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

BOOKS REFERRED

1. M.P.JAIN, Constitution of india, Lexis Nexis(7th edition,2014).

2. Richa Asopa, Rights of Citizen, Lawmann’s.
3. Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, Lawmann’s(2017 Edition)
4. The Indian Penal Code,1860,KLJ Publication(2nd edition 2019)
5. M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, MC Grow Hill(6th Edition)

WEBSITES REFERRED

• https://www.lawaudience.com
• https://www.legalbites.in
• https://www.scconline.in
• https://www.Indiankanoon.org
• www.casemind.com
• www.outlookIndia.com
• https://www.indiatoday.com
• https://lawoctopus.com

CASES REFERRED

• Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala 1986 3 SC 615.

• Anita Thakur v. Govt of Jammu and Kashmir , 2016 , 15 SCC 525.
• Re-Ramlila Maidan Incident Dt ... vs Home Secretary And Ors on 23 February, 2012.

STATUTIES REFERRED

• INDIAN PINAL CODE,1860.

• CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950.
• CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973.
• PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS ACTS,1993
• CODE OF CONDUCT (THE POLICE ACT, 1990)

4
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner, Amber University and Ors in the case Amber University and Ors v.
Government of Empire has the honour to submit this memorandum on behalf of the Petitioner
to the jurisdiction of Hon’ble Supreme Court of Empire, under Article 32 of the Constitution
of Empire.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the present matter.

5
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. On 11th December 2020, the government of Empire passed a legislation called the
Citizenship Amendment Act 2020. The Citizenship Amendment Act, 2020 seeks to
provide Empire citizenship to illegal refugees from 6 communities coming from
Metropolis, District X, and Castle Rock. These 6 communities include; Hindu,
Buddhist, Sikh, Christian, Jain, and Parsi.
2. There was a lot of backlash about this legislation since the CAA ringfences Muslim
identity by declaring Empire a welcome refuge to all other religious communities.
This was alleged to violate the Constitution's Article 14, the fundamental right to
equality to all persons. Constitution cannot be reshaped by any Parliament. And yet,
the government maintains that it does not discriminate or violate the right to equality.

3. In response to the passing of the bill, multiple protests across Empire broke out.
People have voiced their concerns and opposition to the implementation of legislation
of such nature.
4. Among the many protests, students of Amber University (referred to hereinafter as
AU), a prestigious institution in the North Empire planned to march to the parliament
of Empire to express their opposition to the Act. The march was planned for 13th
December 2020.
5. 300 students of AU assembled outside their campus and began their march. In the
course of their march, the police had set up a blockade 1.5 Kms from the AU campus
and were • successful in preventing the students from marching further. The students
sat down near the blockade and began sloganeering anal raising their placards.
6. During this protest, reports were coming about that the protesting students had thrown
stones at blockading police which led to the police initiating tear gas shelling and
baton charge. and faculties of AU contended that the police overextended their
authority by charging at the peaceful protestors and using excessive force against
them. In response to the events of 13th December 2020, the student and teaching
bodies of AU called for larger protests against the police action and the legislation.
7. On 15th December 2020, close to 3500 students and faculties had assembled near the
campus to protest.
8. The protest turned violent after it was found that the police were trying to forcefully
enter the campus since there were multiple reports which the police had received of

6
 miscreants being inside the AU campus. The students tried resisting but the police
forcefully entered the campus using tear gas shells and batons.
9. Nearly 300 students were detained by the police but were released in the early hours
the very next day. Over 200 students were admitted to the hospital with injuries.
10. This event garnered national attention with images of confrontation between the
police and students being plastered overall news channels. As the nation made sense
of the events which unfolded, there was a CCTV footage of the library of the
university which was released which showed police and paramilitary forces using
force against the students studying in the library.
11. Post the release of the footage, there were similar reports of police using
disproportionate force against students inside the campus who had no relation to the
protests or the students protesting. Accounts from the injured students revealed
allegations being levied against the police and their handling of the situation.
12. The police countered these allegations by saying that at no point did they use any
excessive force against the students. There was stone pelting from the protestors
which injured many policemen. This prompted the warranted action from the police.
The Deputy Commissioner of Police pointed out that the police respect the right to
dissent but no person can be allowed to resort to violence, arson, and riotous activity
in the garb of freedom of speech and expression.
13. He added that such fundamental rights are not absolute and are liable to reasonable
restrictions under the Constitution. Under the garb of organizing a protest, it is
completely impermissible for the citizens to create a law and order situation and to lay
a siege and paralyze the day-to-day activity of fellow citizens who are completely
unconnected with the cause for which protests are organized by a section of the
society.
14. Post the events of December 15th, 2020, there is a PIL filed in the Supreme Court of
Empire seeking action against what is termed as a "brutal attack on the students,
faculties & residents of Amber University" by the petitioners. The police believe the
allegations levied against them are false and untrue.

7
 STATEMENT OF ISSUE

1. WHETHER THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IS MAINTAINABLE?

2. WHETHER PROTESTING AGAINST A LEGISLATION WOULD FALL WITHIN
THE AMIBIT OF ART. 19 (1) (a)?
3. WHETHER THERE IS A NEED TO FRAME GUIDELINES ON THE USE OF
FORCES TO GOVERN THE CONDUCT OF POLICE PERSONNEL?
4. WHETHER THE USE OF SECTION 144 INFRINGES UPON THE CITIZEN’S
RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE AND PROTEST?

8
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE-1: WHETHER THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FILED IS

MAINTAINABLE?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Empire, having original
jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution to hear any matter wherein there has been a
violation of the Fundamental Rights of the citizen has the jurisdiction to hear and dispose of
this present case. The matter at hand is one fit for hearing before this Hon’ble Court as there
has been a Fundamental Rights violation as well as a violation of the Basic Structure of the
Constitution. In place of the circumstances of the present case, it is contended that the matter
is one fit for adjudication before this Hon’ble Supreme Court.

ISSUE-2: WHETHER PROTESTING AGAINST A LEGISLATION WOULD FALL

WITHIN THE AMBIT OF ARTICLE 19[1][a] ?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Empire, that article 19[1][a]
guarantees to all citizens the right to “freedom of speech and expression” There is no specific
provision in the constitution. Under Article 19 (1 )(a) freedom of expression means the
freedom to express not only one's views but also the views of others. Hereby in this case it is
also the fundamental right of the petitioner and their freedom of speech and expression in
holding the protest. As the constitution of the empire itself guarantees this right to its citizens
the protest against the legislation would fall under the ambit of article 19[1][a].

ISSUE-3: WHETHER THERE IS A NEED TO FRAME GUIDELINES ON THE USE OF

FORCE TO GOVERN THE CONDUCT OF POLICE PERSONNEL?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Empire, There is a need to
frame guidelines on the use of force to govern the conduct of police personnel. As in the
present case, Police and the state could have avoided the violent incident. As there was no
violence from the petitioner's side during the protest and the protest was a peaceful one.
There was an abuse of power by the Police of the empire and violation of the fundamental
rights of people Who were involved in the protest. The incident was a reflection of the might
of the state which struck the foundation of the democracy of the country. It is a glaring
example of a trust deficit between the people governing and the people being governed.

9
ISSUE-4: WHETHER THE USE OF SECTION 144 INFRINGES UPON THE CITIZENS
RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE AND PROTEST?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Empire, The use of section 144
does infringe upon the citizen's rights to assemble and protest. Section 144 of IPC - Joining
unlawful assembly armed with a deadly weapon1. The use of section 144 infringes the
fundamental rights mentioned in Article 19(1)(b) guarantees to the citizens the right to
assemble peacefully and without arms. Section 144 cannot be used to suppress the legitimate
expression of opinion or grievance or the exercise of democratic rights. Such a provision can
be used only in grave circumstances for the maintenance of public peace. The efficacy of the
provision is to prevent some harmful occurrence immediately.

1
whoever being armed with any deadly weapon, or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence is likely
to cause death, is a member of an lawful assembly shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for
a team which may extend to two years, or with fine or with both.

10
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE-1: WETHER THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FILED IS

MAINTAINABLE?

It is humbly submitted before The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Empire, having original

jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution to hear any matter where in there has been

a violation of the Fundamental Rights of the citizen has the jurisdiction to hear and dispose

of this present case. The matter at hand is one fit for hearing before this Hon’ble Court as

there has been a Fundamental Rights violation as well as a violation of the Basic Structure

of the Constitution. In lieu of the circumstances of the present case, it is contended that the

matter is one fit for adjudication before this Hon’ble Supreme Court.

The jurisdiction conferred on the Supreme Court by Article 32 is an important and integral

part of the basic structure of the Constitution because it is meaningless to confer

Fundamental Rights without providing an effective remedy for their remedy. The Supreme

Court, being the guardian and champion of the Fundamental Rights of the people, is

inherently empowered to hear any case, such as the present one, where it is alleged that

there is a violation of such rights, not just of an individual, but of an entire section of the

community.

Public Interest Litigation is not in the nature of adversarial litigation but it is a challenge and

an opportunity for the government and its officers to make basic human rights meaningful

to the deprived and vulnerable sections of the community and to assure them the social

and economic justice which is the signature tune of our Constitution. Hence it can be said

that such a matter is not only within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court but constitutes a

part of its duty to ensure that the government has an opportunity to rectify any injustice

that it might have caused.

11
In the case of M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India

The judgment delivered on January 12, 1988, lashed out at civic authorities for allowing

untreated sewage from Kanpur’s tanneries to make its way into the Ganges. Three

landmark judgments and a number of Orders against polluting industries numbering more

than fifty thousand in the Ganga basin passed from time to time. In this case, apart from

industries, more than 250 towns and cities have been ordered to put sewage treatment

plants. Six hundred tanneries operating in a highly congested residential area of Kolkata

have been shifted out of the City and relocated to a planned Leather Complex in the State

of West Bengal. A large number of industries were closed down by the Court and were

allowed to reopen only after these industries set up effluent treatment plants and controlled

pollution. As a result of these directions, millions of people have been saved from the

effects of air and water pollution in the Ganga basin covering 8 states in India. In this case

M.C Mehta a public-spirited citizen filed a PIL to the supreme court for the rights of a group

of persons due to ignorance are themselves unable to approach the court for their

remedies. In the present case which is at hand the fundamental rights of the citizens

involved in the protest were violated. So the petition has been filed by Amber university on

behalf of all the citizens [ students & faculties of the Amber university ]

PIL is a product of the judicial activism role of the supreme court. The Supreme Court has

defined the PIL as “a legal action initiated in a court of law for the enforcement of public

interest or general interest in which the public or a class of the community have pecuniary

interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected”. In the present

12
case, Amber university & Ors v. Govt of empire involves infringement of the
fundamental right mentioned in article 19[1][a] as the fundamental rights of expression of a
large no of2

the petitioners involved in the protest were violated. Therefore the PIL filed by the petitioner
is maintainable.

It is submitted by the petitioner that they seek not from this Hon’ble Court for the exercise

of a jurisdiction which is alien or new or perverse to its functioning. Rather, what is sought

is the fulfilment of an obligation of this Hon’ble Court towards its citizens, and to ensure

them of their Fundamental Rights, and enable them to achieve these rights, and eradicate

any action that may endanger these rights. In this light, it has most humbly contended that

this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the present petition.

ISSUE-2 : WHETHER PROTESTING AGAINST A LEGISLATION WOULD FALL

WITHIN THE AMBIT OF ARTICLE 19[1][a] ?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Empire, that article 19[1][a]

guarantees to all citizens the right to “freedom of speech and expression” There is no

specific provision in the constitution. Under Article 19 (1)(a) freedom of expression means

the freedom to express not only one’s own views but also the views of others. Hereby in

this case it is also the fundamental right of the petitioner and their freedom of speech and

expression in holding the protest. As the constitution of the empire itself guarantees this

right to its citizens the protest against the legislation would fall under the ambit of article

19[1][a].

In the national anthem case 1 - Freedom of speech also includes the right to silence. In a

case6, three children belonging to Jehovah’s Witnesses were expelled from the school for

refusing to sing the national anthem, although they stood respectfully when the same was

2
Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala 1986 3 SC 615

13
being sung. They challenged the validity of their expulsion before the Kerala High Court
which upheld the expulsion as valid and on the ground that it was their fundamental duty to
sing the national anthem. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the students did not commit
any offense under the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971. Also,3

there was no law under which their fundamental right under Article 19(1) (a) could
becurtailed.

Accordingly, it was held that the children’s expulsion from the school was a violation of

their fundamental right under Article 19(1) (a), which also includes the freedom of silence

& expression.

In the present case also the fundamental right guaranteed in article 19[1][a] of the

constitution of the empire - freedom of speech and expression is violated. As the protest

started because the Citizenship amendment act 2020 passed by the govt of the empire

infringes Muslim identity by declaring the empire a welcome refugee to all other religious

communities. This violated Article 14 of the constitution which guarantees the fundamental

right to equality to all persons. If this CAA was brought into force it would disturb the basic
structure of the constitution which cannot be done by the parliament. So it was the

freedom of the protestors of the amber university to express their opinion on this.

ISSUE-3 : WHETHER THERE IS A NEED TO FRAME GUIDELINES ON THE USE OF

FORCE TO GOVERN THE CONDUCT OF POLICE PERSONNEL ?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Empire, There is a need to

frame guidelines on the use of force to govern the conduct of police personnel. As in the

present case, Police and the state could have avoided the violent incident. As there was

no violence from the petitioner's side during the protest and the protest was a peaceful

3
Anita Thakur v. Govt of Jammu and Kashmir , 2016 , 15 SCC 525

14
one. There was an abuse of power by the Police of the empire and violation of the

fundamental rights of people Who were involved in the protest. The incident was a

reflection of the might of the state which struck the foundation of the democracy of the

country. It is a glaring example of a trust deficit between the people governing and the

people being governed.

Freedom of assembly - Every citizen has the right to assemble peacefully and without

arms. It includes the right to hold public meetings, demonstrations, and take-out

processions. This freedom can be exercised only on public land and the assembly must be

peaceful and unarmed. This provision does not protect violent, disorderly riotous

assemblies, or one that causes breach of the public peace, or one that involves arms.

Wherever possible, law enforcement officials should use nonviolent means to achieve a

legitimate law enforcement objective before resorting to physical force, as article 3 of the

1979 code of conduct provides law enforcement officials may use force only “to the extent

required for the performance of their duty. The use of force must respect the principle of

reasonable and proportionality. In a 2016 case Anita Thakur v. State of Jammu and

Kashmir, the supreme court observed; in those cases where the assembly is peaceful, the

use of police force is not warranted at all. However, in those situations where the crowd or

assembly becomes violent, it may necessitate and justify using reasonable police force. It

becomes a more serious problem when taking recourse to such an action, police indulge

in excess and cross the limit by using excessive force. This results in the violation of

human rights and human dignity. This is the reason that the petitioner feels that police

frequently abuse the power to use force and therefore It is humbly submitted that there

must be guidelines framed on the use of force of police personnel.

15
ISSUE-4: WETHER THE USE OF SECTION 144 INFRINGES UPON THE CITIZENS

RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE AND PROTEST?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Empire, The use of section

144 does infringe upon the citizen’s rights to assemble and protest. Section 144 of IPC -

Joining unlawful assembly armed with a deadly weapon. The use of section 144 infringes

the fundamental rights mentioned in Article 19(1)(b) guarantees to the citizens the right to

assemble peacefully and without arms. Section 144 cannot be used to suppress the

legitimate expression of opinion or grievance or the exercise of democratic rights. Such a

provision can be used only in grave circumstances for the maintenance of public peace.

The efficacy of the provision is to prevent some harmful occurrence immediately.

Section 144 of CrPC - gives the power to issue an order in urgent cases of nuisances or

apprehend danger.

Provided that, if the state government consider it necessary to do so for preventing danger

to human life, health or safety or preventing a riot or any afraid, it may, by notification direct

that an order made by the magistrate under this section shall remain in force for such

further period for not existing six months from the date on which the order made by the

magistrate would have, but for such order, expired, as it may specify in the set notification4 .

Here in the present case as mentioned in section 144 of CrPC there is no danger to

human life or health or safety and also the protest was a peaceful one and not one to be

afraid of, as the protestors carried no weapons or arms with them.

The right to protest is a fundamental right. When a group, community, or even a person

goes up to protest it is usually to showcase their disapproval or demur against any action,

policy, statement, etc. of state or govt or any organization. Protest helps a particular

4
Re-Ramlila Maidan Incident Dt ... vs Home Secretary And Ors on 23 February, 2012

16
community or group or person to show disagreement with the policy in question. Article

19[1][b] states about the right to assemble peaceafully and without arms there by the right

to peaceful protest are bestowed to Indian citizens by our constitution.

For instances, in the Ramila Maidan incident v. Home secretary, the union of India &

others 3 the supreme court had ruled that “citizens have a fundamental right to assemble

and do a peaceful protest that cannot be taken away by an arbitrary executive or

legislative action. “ even the 2012 Delhi gang rape agitated every fraction of society that

led to tremendous public outraged on people were very clear on expressing that they have

had enough. The state on other hand requires respect and address the protest because

the constitution also makes it necessary for the state to ensure the fundamental; right to

freedom of speech and expression. Protesting is not only a fundamental right granted by

the Indian constitution but protesting against injustice is a moral duty.

Thousand continued to the assembly on the streets to demand the government rethink the

citizenship amendment act. such public protest is the hallmark of a free, democratic

society, whose logic demands that the voice of the people is heard by those in power and

discussions be reached after proper discussion and consultation. For this the right to

freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly are necessary. Any arbitrary

restraint on the exercise of such rights for instance, in posing section 144 - shows the

ability of the government to tolerate decently. It shows not the propensity of people to riot

but rather the incapacity of the government to discuss, deliberate, or listen. The right to

freedom of speech and expression transforms into the right to freely express their opinion

on the conduct of the government. Article 19(1)(c). It Proclaims that all citizens shall have

the freedom to form associations or unions for a lawful purpose. The right to association

17
becomes the right to associate for political purposes, for instance, to collectively challenge

government decisions and to even aim, peacefully and legally. Finally, the right to

peaceably assemble allows political parties and citizenship bodies such as university-

based student groups to question and object to acts of the government by demonstrations,

agitations, and public meetings, to launch sustained protest movements.

18
 PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced an
authorities cited the hon’ble court may be pleased to declare that

1. The PIL filed by the petitioner is maintainable.

2. Protesting against the legislation would fall within the ambit of article 19[1][a].
3. There is a need to frame guidelines on the use of force to govern the conduct of police
personnel.

4.The use of section 144 does infringe upon the citizen’s right to assemble and protest.

And to pass any other order in favour of the petitioner that it may deem fit in the interest of
justice, equity, and good conscience. All of which are submitted respectfully.

19