`

PARTICIPATION CODE- C-74

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY , LUCKNOW.

CONCOURS,2022
BEFORE,
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SATYADESH

WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION

CHAND NAWAB………………………………………………………… PETITIONER
v.
GOVERNMENT OF SATYADESH……………………………… RESPONDENT NO. 1
DOGE GROUP…………………………………………………… RESPONDENT NO.2

CLUBBED WITH
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION
BABURAO GANPATRAO APTE…………………………….. PETITIONER
v.
STATE OF RIVER FRONT……………………………………. RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL FILED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

`

COMPENDIUM

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS -
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution-

Article 12 of the Indian Constitution- Doge Group does not fall under the category of ‘State’
according to Article 12 of the constitution. Article 12 has been defined in the Constitution as:
In this part, unless the context otherwise requires, ‘the State’ includes:
1. The Government and the Parliament of Satyadesh;
2. The Government and the Legislature of each of States;
3. Local Authorities; or
4. Other Authorities; (Page No.-12)

STATUTES-
Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951-
Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring and
Decryption of Information) Rules, 2009-
The requests for these lawful interceptions of electronic communication are made as per
relevant rules under the provisions of Section 5(2) of Satyadesh Telegraph Act, 1885 and
Section 69 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. There are enough safeguards within the
scheme of these provisions to ensure that there is no misuse of the surveillance powers that
have granted by the law to the Government. These safeguards include an established
oversight mechanism in the form of a review committee headed by a high-ranking
government official. ; (Page No.-10)

CASES-
Ritesh Sinha v. the State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (AIR 1961 SC 1808)-In 2019, the
hon’ble apex court in the judgment of Ritesh Sinha v. the State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., it
was held that though the right to privacy is a fundamental right it is not an absolute one. Just
like other fundamental rights, it is subject to restrictions. Thus, this judgment upheld the
previous Puttaswamy judgment. ; (Page No.-10)

S.K. Mukherjee v. Chemical Allied Products (AIR 1962 Cal 10)- In S.K. Mukherjee v.
Chemical Allied Products, the Supreme Court held that a “COMPANY” is not a state and
`

that’s why fundamental rights cannot be enforced against that company. Therefore, Doge
Group cannot be held liable for violation of privacy rights of the citizens. (Page No.-12)

State of Maharashtra v. Natwarlal Damodardas Soni, ((1980) 4 SCC 669)-

R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, (AIR 1973 SC 157)-
Judiciary in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Natwarlal Damodardas Soni , and R.M.
Malkani v. State of Maharashtra , held that any illegally obtained evidence is admissible in
the Court of Law if it is relevant to the matter, but the value of such evidence is to be dealt
with care and caution by the Courts. (Page No.-12)
Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection of Income Tax (AIR 1974 SC 348)-In the landmark
case of Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection of Income Tax, the Indian Supreme Court held
that no Constitutional or Statutory construction prescribes to exclude the illegally obtained
evidence thereby the only test of admissibility of evidence is the relevancy of the evidence.
(Page No.-13)
Yashwant Sinha and Ors. v. Central Bureau of Investigation ((2020) 2 SCC 338)- In the
recent Rafael Judgment of Yashwant Sinha and Ors. v. Central Bureau of Investigation, the
Supreme Court retaliated the Pooran Mal case and held the test of admissibility of any
evidence lies in its ‘relevancy’ unless it is expressly or impliedly barred by the Constitutional
provision or Statutory mandate. (Page No.-13)
Kuruma v. the Queens ((1955) AC 197 (U.K.))- Under the Queen’s rule in the United
Kingdom, the evidence is made admissible even if it is illegally obtained through the
unlawful procedure. In the landmark case of Kuruma v. the Queens, it was held an illegally
obtained evidence is admissible if it is relevant to the case and it is the discretion of the Court
to exclude such illegally obtained evidence if it leads to unfairness to the accused which was
later known to be ‘Unfair Operation Rule.’ (Page No.-13)