Xxvii P 1

Memorial
UNION
INDIAN
UNION for
THE MEN’S
OF Petitioner
ORTHODOX
OF SINDHIA
SINDHIA
PROGRESSIVE
XXVII
COUNSEL
PETITION
BEFORE FEMINIST
THALL
THEINDIA
ALLIANCE
IN
ORGANIZATION
MOOT
EAPPEARING
INVOKED THE
ALONG
CONSTITUTION
HON’BLE MATTERS
COURT
V. WITH
UNDER
ON
SUPREME COMPETITION
OFCOURT
BEHALF
OF
ARTICLE
COMPLEXITUS
OF 32
THE 2023
AND
OF (RESPONDENT)
(RESPONDENT)
(PETITIONER)
(PETITIONER)
PETITIONER
SINDHIA
136
TC: OF -MCC-19
MBA P. 1
MBA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2022
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table Of Contents 2
List Of Abbreviations 3
Index Of Authorities 4
• Books
• Websites
Table Of Cases 5
Statement Of Jurisdiction 8
Statement Of Facts 9
Statement Of Issues 10
Summary Of Arguments 11
Arguments Advanced 12
Prayer 29
P. 2 Memorial for Petitioner

LIST OF ABBREVIETION
SL.NO Abbreviation Full Form
1. Govt. Government
2. Hon’ble Honourable
3. SLP Special Leave Petition
4. PIL Public Interest Litigation
5. V. Versus
6. SC Supreme Court
7. HC High Court
8. & And
9. AIR All India Reporter
10. UP Uttar Pradesh
11. SCR Supreme Court Reporter
12. SCC Supreme Court Case
13. Supp Supplement
14. Ors. Others
15. Art. Article
16. i.e., That Is
17. P. Pages
18. U.O.I Union Of India
19. ¶ Paragraph
20. Sec. Section

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
• M.P. JAIN, India Constitution Law, LexisNexis, Eighth Edition.

• Dr. Sheetal Kanwal, India Constitutional Law: The new Challenges, Amar Law Publication.
• Dr. Durga Das Babu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, LexisNexis, 21st Edition.
• Prof. S. R. Bhansali, The Constitution of India, Universal Law Publishing.
• Dr. Kailash Rai, Public Interest Lawyering, Central law Publications.
• Dr. Paramjit S. Jaswal, Dr. Nishtha Jaswal, Vibhuti Jaswal, Environmental Law, Allahabad
Law Agency.
WEBSITES:
• www.sconline.in
• www.manupatra.in
• www.judis.nic.in
• www.indiankanoon.org
• www.lexisnexis.com
JOURNALS:
• All India Reporter (AIR)

• Supreme Court Cases (SCC)
• Supreme Court Reporter (SCR)
BARE ACTS:
• THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950.
• THE INDIAN TELEGRAPH ACT, 1885.
• THE UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT, 1967.
TABLE OF CASES
Sl. No; CASE LAWS CITATION

1. Asif Iqbal Tanha V. State Of NCT Of Delhi Crl. A. 39/2021

2. Arup Bhuyan V. State Of Assam Crl. A. No(S). 889 Of 2007
3. Bijoe Emmanuel V. State Of Kerala 1987 AIR 748; 1986 SCR (3)
518; 1986 SCC (3) 615
4. Brij Bhushan V. State Of Delhi 1950 AIR 129; 1950 SCR
605
5. Bennett Coleman & Co V. Union Of India 1973 AIR 106, 1973 SCR (2)
757
6. Chiranjit Lal Chowdhury V. The Union Of 1951 AIR 41, 1950 SCR 869
India
7. Ebrahim Vazir Marat V. The State Of 1954 AIR 229, 1954 SCR 933
Bombay
8. Express Newspaper V. Union Of India 1986 AIR 515 1985 SCR (2)
287 1985 SCC (1) 641
9. E. P. Royappa V. State Of Tamil 1974 AIR 555, 1974 SCR (2)
348
10. Ganga Kumar Srivastava V. State Of Bihar (2005) 6 SCC 211: AIR 2005
SC 3123
11. Harbansalsahnia V. Indian Oil Corporation AIR 2003 SC 2120
Ltd.
12. Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) 1986 AIR 515; 1985 SCR
Ltd. V. Union Of India (2) 287; 1985 SCC (1) 641
13. Indibily Creative Pvt. Ltd. V. Govt. Of West Writ Petition (Civil) No 306
Bengal Of 2019
14. Iqbal Ahmed Kabir Ahmed V. State Of Crl. A. No.355 Of 2021
Maharashtra
15. Jamshed Hormusji Wadia V. Board Of AIR 2004 SC 1815
Trustees, Port Of Mumbai
16. Kunhayammed V. State Of Kerala (2000)6 SCC 359: (2002)
Supp (1) SCR 538
17. K.S. Puttaswamy And Anr. V. Union Of (2017) 10 SCC 1

India And Ors

18. K.K. Kouchunni V. State Of Madras AIR 1959 SC 725

19. Kavalappara Kottarathil V. The State Of 1960 AIR 1080
Madras And Others
20. Kalawati V. State Of H. P 1953 AIR 131; 1953 SCR
546
21. Kartar Singh V. State Of Punjab 1961 AIR 1787; 1962 SCR
(2) 395
22. Kharak Singh V. The State Of UP 1963 AIR 1295, 1964 SCR
(1) 332
23. Life Insurance Corpn. Of India And ... V 1993 AIR 171, 1992 SCR (3)
Prof. Manubhai D. Shah Etc 595
24. M. P. Sharma V. Satish Chandra AIR 1954 SC 300
25. Narpat Singh V. Jaipur Development (2002)4 SCC 666: (2002)
Authority Supp (1) SCR 538
26. Nandini Satpathey V. P.L. Dani 1978 AIR 1025; 1978 SCR
(3) 608; 1978 SCC (2) 424
27. Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi V. 1990 AIR 1962, 1990 SCR
Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya (3) 633
28. Pritam Singh V. State AIR 1950 SC 169: 1950 SCR
453
29. Prem Chand Garg V. Excise Commissioner AIR 1963 SC 996
30. Patricia Mukhim V. 3The State Of Crl. A. No.141 Of 2021, @
Meghalaya And Ors Slp (Crl.) No.103 Of 2021)
31. PUCL V. Union Of India AIR 1997 SC 568, (1997) 1
SCC 301, 1996 Supp 10 SCR
321
32. Rashid Ahmed V. Municipal Board, 1950 AIR 163, 1950 SCR 566
KAIRana
33. Ram Krishna Dalmia V. Justice Tendolkar AIR 1958 SC 538
34. Romesh Thappar V. The State Of Madras 1950 AIR 124, 1950 SCR 594
35. State Of U.P. V. Babul Nath 1994 SCC (6) 29, Jt 1994 (5)
105

36. S.Pratap Singh V. The State Of Punjab 1964 AIR 72, 1964 SCR (4)
733
37. State Of Bombay V. State Of Bombay V. AIR 1953 SC 252
United Motors Ltd.
38. Sakal Papers (P) Ltd., And Others V. The 1962 AIR 305, 1962 SCR (3)
Union Of India 84
39. S.Rangarajan V. P. Jagjivan Ram 1989 SCR (2) 204, 1989 SCC
(2) 574
40. Sri Indra Das V. State of Assam Crl. A. No.1383 Of 2007
41. Tikaram & Sons Ltd. V. Commissioner Of AIR 1979 SC 1286
Sales Tax, U.P.,
42. T. C. Basappa V. T. Nagappa 1954 AIR 440, 1955 SCR 250
43. Thwaha Faisal V. Union Of India Crl. A. No. 1302 Of 2021
44. Union Of India V. Association For (2002) 5 SCC 294
Democratic Reforms
45. Union Of India V. K.A Najeeb Crl. A. No. 98 Of 2021
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

I. Special Leave Petition No. ___ Of 2022 – Mr. Wisenheimer V. State Of Mightos
The Petitioner has filed a SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Complexitus in the
matter of Mr. Wisenheimer V. State of Mightos under Article 136 of the Constitution of
Complexitus against the judgement and order of the Hon’ble High Court of Mightos.
II. Public Interest Litigation No. __ Of 2022 – The Sovereign V. Union Of Complexitus
The Petitioner has filed a PIL before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Complexitus in the
matter of The Sovereign V. Union of Complexitus under Article 32 of the Constitution.
Article 136 in The Constitution of Complexitus 1949 - Special leave to appeal by the
Supreme Court
1. Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion,
grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or
order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory
of Complexitus.
Article 32 in The Constitution of Complexitus 1949 - Remedies for enforcement of rights

conferred by this Part
1. The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement
of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
2. The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including
writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and
certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights
conferred by this Part.
STATEMENT OF FACTS

Background of the Case:
1. Complexitus, a largely rural populated tropical country in South Asia, a peaceloving

country primarily dependent on agriculture and has a federal structure.
2. Mightos is a state in the Complexitus with mushrooming of industries causing air and
water pollution and protests against it were organized by ‘Tree Faith’- NGO.
3. Bovinedung Pvt Ltd. (BPL) is a fertilizer manufacture, which has a plant just outside the
capital of Mightos but close to the populated areas of Mightos.
Crux of the Case:
1. In May 2022, a Show Cause Notice was issued by Mightos Pollution Control
Board to BPL for violation of Zero Liquid Discharge conditions and the
discharge continued and around same time, due to road accident, a tanker
carrying hazardous sludge was leaked, which was cleared only after 3 days by
the authorities.
2. In June 2022, peoples who reside within 10 km radius of BPL plant, started
severe respiratory problem led to protests outside BPL’s plant and led to the
protests which were largely peaceful for 8 days, suddenly turned violent on the
9th day and Sec 144 Cr.P.C., were imposed in the district.
3. Mr. Wisenheimer, a journalist associated with ‘The Sovereign’- a news channel
in this 9 pm show on 21.06.2022 provided certain information and exaggerated
the protest and this led to violence across the State of Mightos.
4. The authorities had been intercepting all the calls of Mr. Wisenheimer for few
months and received information that he has been asked to sensationalize the
BPL issue in a call from unknown person on 20.06.2022, and this confidential
information was leaked to the press and obtain widespread coverage in the
media. 5. The State Govt. invokes Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
and detains Mr. Wisenheimer and it is challenged before the Supreme Court of
Complexitus by invoking Article 32 of the constitution and filed a Special Leave
Petition before the Supreme Court, raising several constitutional and other
issues.
6. ‘The Sovereign’ filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Supreme Court of
Complexitus against the police and government excess vis-à-vis interception of phones of
journalists and that it violates the freedom of press.

7. The matter is posted before the Supreme Court 5 Judge Bench for final hearing.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES
ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE INSTANT PETITIONS FILED BEFORE THIS HON'BLE

SUPREME COURT IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER THE EYES OF LAW?
ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE ACTS OF POLICE AND THE GOVERNMENT EXCESS

VIS-À-VIS INTERCEPTION OF PHONES OF JOURNALISTS DOES THAT
VIOLATES THE FREEDOM OF PRESS AND OTHER FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS?
ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE ACT OF OBTAINING VOICE SAMPLES FROM THE

PETITIONER IN THIS INSTANT CASE IS REASONABLE AND LAWFUL?
ISSUE 4: WHETHER DETAINING MR. WISENHEIMER UNDER UNLAWFUL

ACTIVITIES PREVENTION ACT 1967 IS LAWFUL AND LEGITIMATE?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
Issue 1: Whether the instant petitions filed before this Hon'ble Supreme court is
maintainable under the eyes of law?
It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court of Complexitus that the
special leave petition filed by Mr. Wisenheimer and the public interest litigation filed by The
Sovereign respectively, under articles 136 and 32 of the constitution, are maintainable as
merits of the cases fully satisfy the mentioned guidelines and the criteria as stipulated to
invoke these articles.
Issue 2: Whether the acts of police and the government excess vis-à-vis interception of
phones of journalists does that violates the freedom of press and other fundamental
rights?
It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court of Compelxitus that the acts
of the police and the government excess vis-à-vis interception of phones of journalists that
violate the freedom of the press as a whole to both the sovereign and as far as individual’s
rights are concerned it violates the following: Article 14, 19(a), 19(1)(a), 19(g), 20(3), 21.
Issue 3: Whether the act of obtaining voice samples from the petitioner in this instant
case is reasonable and lawful?
It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme court of Complexitus that the voice
sample application filed by Mr. Wisenheimer, under Art. 20(3) of the Constitution and Sec.5
of Telegraph Act 1885 is nor reasonable and lawful as to satisfy the guidelines of the Article.
Issue 4: Whether detaining Mr. Wisenheimer under unlawful activities prevention act
1967 is lawful and legitimate?
P. 12
Memorial for Petitioner
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Complextius that the charges
implied on Mr. Wisenheimer under Unlawful Activities Prevention Act is nor lawful and
legitimate.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE 1. WHETHER THE INSTANT PETITIONS FILED BEFORE THIS HON'BLE

SUPREME COURT IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER THE EYES OF LAW?
It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court of Complexitus that the
special leave petition filed by Mr. Wisenheimer and the public interest litigation filed by The
Sovereign respectively, under articles 136 and 32 of the constitution, are maintainable as
merits of the cases fully satisfy the mentioned guidelines and the criteria as stipulated to
invoke these articles.
1.1 THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETTION FILED BY MR. WISENHIEMER IS

MAINTAINABLE.
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the Supreme Court invokes the power
under Article 136 in “exceptional circumstances as and when a question of law of general
public importance arises which shocks the conscience of the Court 1. The Court has
periodically endeavored to delineate the parameters of how the power is to be employed
because the powers granted to the Court by Article 136 are broad, comprehensive, plenary 2,
and discretionary3.
According to the Court, it is an unconstrained source of authority that cannot be restrained by

definitional bonds. The only restriction placed on its discretion is the judge’s wisdom, good
judgement, or sense of justice4. However, it was established that "the Court also has the
power to intervene with findings of fact, within the self-imposed constraints. The Court has
1 Tikaram & Sons Ltd. V. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., AIR 1979 SC 1286.
2 Jamshed Hormusji Wadia V. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai AIR 2004 SC 1815.
3 Pritam Singh V. State, AIR 1950 SC 169: 1950 SCR 453.
4 Kunhayammed V. state of Kerala (2000)6 SCC 359: (2002) Supp (1) SCR 538.

forewarned itself that the power is exceptional and should only be used sparingly and
carefully to address extreme circumstances or those that result in egregious injustice 5.
The scope of article 136 is The High Court's assessment of the evidence is broadly
acknowledged by the Supreme Court as being conclusive. This Court does not typically
reevaluate the evidence on its own or consider the credibility of the witnesses, unless, of
course, the finding is vitiated by any legal or procedural error, is found to be against the
principles of natural justice, contains errors of record and misconstruing of the evidence, or
the conclusions of the court are contrary to the evidence6.
In the case of Ganga Kumar Srivastava V. State of Bihar7, Guidelines for the exercise of
power under Article 136 were laid down:
● The powers are very wide but in criminal appeals, no interference with the concurrent
findings of fact save in exceptional circumstances.
● Interference with the finding of facts only if the High Court has acted perversely or
otherwise improperly.
● In very exceptional circumstances, such as when a legal issue of great public concern
emerges or a decision shocks the Court's conscience, the power granted by Article 136
can be utilized.
● It is unsafe for the Court to act when the evidence adduced by the prosecution fails the
test of reliability and acceptability.
● When the High Court's conclusions are perverse and cannot be supported by the
evidence on record, interference is appropriate. This can happen when the High
Court's conclusions are vitiated by errors of law or procedure, found to be contrary to
the principles of natural justice, errors of record, and misreading of the evidence.
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that this instant petition does attract special
circumstances and is of greater public importance henceforth here is a gross violation of the
fundamental rights of the petitioner by the authorities wherein they unlawfully intercept the
5 Narpat Singh V. Jaipur Development Authority, (2002) 4 SCC 666: (2002) Supp (1) SCR 538.
6 State of U.P. V. Babul Nath 1994 SCC (6) 29, JT 1994
(5) 105. 7 (2005) 6 SCC 211: AIR 2005 SC 3123.
P. 14
calls, then arrest based on a statement made by the Petitioners in his 9 o clock show which
indicated the failure of the State to act and prevent the ongoing pollutions which have been
detrimental to the people's health at large. The arrest and detaining are purely an attempt to
stop them from raising their voices against the Government's inaction in the case of BPL’s
pollution this infringes article 19 of the constitution. This act was an attempt to curb the free
flow of information within the State regarding the true events.
By emphasizing the erroneous allegations levelled against the Petitioners, the Authorities
attempted to cover up their mistake. It is humbly further submitted that the statement made by
the petitioner does not amount to any sort of unlawful activity and thus the provisions of
UAPA under which the journalist was charged are inapplicable to this instant case.
Here there is a clear establishment of abuse of power and injustice that the police had
expanded the scope of the definition of unlawful activity on their whim and fancy to detain
the journalist. in the landmark case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy and Anr. V. Union of
Complexitus and Ors7, it has been recognized that the right to privacy forms an integral part
of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and citizens have
the right to give consent concerning the physical body, personal data, and property. In this
instant case, there has been a compulsion on the petitioner to submit his voice sample which
amounts to an infringement of article 20(3) of our Constitution which says that a person shall
not be compelled to be a witness against himself.
1.2 THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FILED BY THE SOVEREIGN IS

MAINTAINABLE.
The purpose of Article 32 of the Complexitus Constitution is to guarantee the sustaining of

the law and prohibit abuse or misuse of authority. It is intended to make sure that every
authority in the State, including the Government, functions ethically and within the scope of
its authority, and that when a court is certain that there has been an abuse or misuse of power,
it’s the court's duty to provide the individual with justice 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
7 (2017) 10 SCC 1.
8 S. Pratap Singh V. The State of Punjab 1964 AIR 72, 1964 SCR (4) 733.

case of Prem Chand Garg V. Excise Commissioner held that in discharging duties assigned
to the court, the
Supreme Court has to play the role of a ‘sentinel on the qui vive’ and it must always regard it
as it’s a solemn duty to protect the said fundamental rights ‘zealously and vigilantly’ 9. There
is a well-founded allegation that a fundamental right has been infringed, the alternative
remedy is no bar for entertaining a writ petition and granting relief 10. The mere existence of
an adequate alternative legal remedy cannot be per se a good and sufficient ground for
throwing out a petition under Art. 32 if the existence of a fundamental right and a breach,
actual or
threatened, of such right and is alleged is prima facie established on the petition12.
Despite the availability of the alternative remedy, the court may exercise its writ jurisdiction
in at least petitions where the petitioner seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights 13.
Thus, the petitioner humbly submits that the writ petition is maintainable as the existence of
an alternative remedy is not a bar and there has been a violation of fundamental rights which
is sufficient to invoke this jurisdiction As article 32 in itself is a fundamental right 14.
In the cases of its Chiranjit Lal Chowdhury V. The Union of Complexitus15, Rashid Ahmed
V. Municipal Board, Kairana16 T. C. Basappa V. T. Nagappa17 and Ebrahim Vazir Marat
V. The State of Bombay18 it was observed that This court would fail in its duty as the
custodian and protector of the fundamental rights if it were to decline to entertain a petition
under Art.
32 simply because it involved the determination of disputed questions of fact.
In this instant case, the sovereign is a news channel associated with Mr. Wisenheimer who is
a journalist for the sovereign channel. Herein the sovereign has the locus standi to appear on
behalf of the journalist's rights and their freedoms and freedom of the press specifically where
the state infringed their rights by intercepting the calls for a journalist without any proper
reasoning nor authority and arresting based on a fair and truthful comment made by the
9 AIR 1963 SC 996.

10 State of Bombay V. United motors Ltd. AIR 1953 SC 252.
P. 16
journalist on their 9-o clock show. Thus, these types of infringement are violative as a whole
to the journalists out there.
If the authorities use their powers and laws at their own whims to control the people, there
will be no freedom of speech nor freedom of the press the society will no longer be
democratic.
12
K.K. Kouchunni V. State of Madras AIR 1959 SC 725.
13
HarbansalSahnia V. India Oil Corporation Ltd. AIR 2003 SC 2120.
14
Kavalappara Kottarathil V. The State Of Madras And Others.
15
1951 AIR 41, 1950 SCR 869.
16
1950 AIR 163, 1950 SCR 566.
17
1954 AIR 440, 1955 SCR 250.
18
1954 AIR 229, 1954 SCR 933.
ISSUE 2. WHETHER THE ACTS OF POLICE AND THE GOVERNMENT EXCESS
VIS-À-VIS INTERCEPTION OF PHONES OF JOURNALISTS DOES THAT
VIOLATE THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS AND OTHER FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHTS?
It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court of Compelxitus that the acts
of the police and the government excess vis-à-vis interception of phones of journalists that
violate the freedom of the press as a whole to both the sovereign and as far as individual s
rights are concerned it violates the following:
● Article 14 Equality before law The State shall not deny to any person equality before
the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India Prohibition of
discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth11.
● Article 19(a) freedom of speech and expression12.
● Article 19 (1)(a) freedom of press13
11 Ram Krishna Dalmia V. Justice Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538.

12 Romesh Thappar V. The State Of Madras, 1950 AIR 124, 1950 SCR 594.
13 Bennett Coleman & Co V. Union of India,1973 AIR 106, 1973 SCR (2) 757.

● Article 19(g) to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or

business.
● Article 20(3) No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness
against himself.14
● Article 21 Protection of life and personal liberty No person shall be deprived of his
life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law15.
Authorities are prosecuting journalists and online critics under terrorist and sedition laws for
their criticism of state policies and activities. The government should stop persecuting
journalists and stop silencing independent media while also respecting the right to freedom of
expression. Any journalists who have been jailed on fabricated or politically motivated
charges for their critical reporting should be freed. The authorities have detained journalists
under fictitious terrorism and sedition charges and frequently target detractors and
independent news organizations, including raiding their offices, amid tightening restrictions
on media freedom. Under The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Information
Technology Act and IT Rules of 2021, journalists and online critics who publish anything
that is critical of the
government run the possi16bility of being prosecuted. In this instant case, there have been
various violations of fundamental rights. Which has deeply impacted “the sovereign and Mr.
Wisenheimer these unnecessary acts of the authorities have put them through hardships.
2.1 THE ACTS OF THE AUTHORITIES ARE ARBITRARY IN NATURE

TOWARDS
JOURNALISTS
It is most humbly submitted that Between arbitrary and non-arbitrary behavior, there is a thin
line. The state is prohibited from behaving arbitrarily by the right to equality. To prevent
arbitrary action, each governing body is subject to a number of restrictions. In order to
prevent the state's organs from making any arbitrary decisions, it is imperative to take this
action. In this instant case, there has been an abuse of power and they have misused their
14 M. P. Sharma V. Satish Chandra, AIR 1954 SC 300.

15 Kharak Singh V. the state of UP, 1963 AIR 1295, 1964 SCR (1) 332.
16 AIR 1962, 1990 SCR (3) 633.
P. 18
discretion by intercepting the calls of Mr. Wisenheimer further on they detained him
arbitrarily under the
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. it’s still a mystery how the call recording that the
authorities intercepted is leaked? Or is this act of leak being foul-play to defame the
petitioners? hence this shows the negligence of the authorities in terms of data handling and
infringing on the petitioner's fundamental rights such as the right to privacy. In the case of
Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi V. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya 24. the Court held that
while applying a law with serious penal consequences on a person, extreme care must be
taken to ensure that the authorities do not go beyond the scope of the statute by reading new
provisions into it. In the case of Patricia Mukhim V. the State of Meghalaya and Ors 17 it
was held that the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be
taken away by the authorities by implicating individuals under false criminal cases unless the
speech has caused a disturbance in the public order of the country. The authorities should
limit the interpretation of the provisions to what was intended by the legislature while
enacting the law.
There are multiple instances all over the country 18 where the authorities are being
discriminatory towards the journalists who criticized the government's acts and policies. 19
hence this sort of discrimination attracts article 14 of the constitution. This interpretation of
equality given in E. P. Royappa V. State of Tamil Nadu28 has been accepted and repeatedly
applied. P.N. Bhagwati. J. was of the view that equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies;
one belongs to the rule of law in a republic while the other, to the whim and caprice of an
absolute monarch. Where an act is arbitrary, it is implicit in it that it is unequal both
according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative of Article 14.
2.2 A BAR ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PRESS IS A BAR ON THE

DEMOCRACY
17 Criminal Appeal No.141 of 2021, @ SLP (Crl.) No.103 of 2021).

18 https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/05/03/india-media-freedom-under-threat
19 https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/03/24/kashmiri-journalist-detained-under-draconian-
indian-law 28 1974 AIR 555, 1974 SCR (2) 348.

It is most humbly submitted that Speech is God's gift to mankind 20. Through Speech a human
being conveys his thoughts, sentiments and feeling to others. Freedom of speech and
expression is thus a natural right which a human being acquires on birth. It is, therefore, a
basic human right. The freedom to air one's views is the life line of any democratic institution
and any attempt to stifle, suffocate or gag this right would sound a death-knell to democracy
and would help usher in autocracy or dictatorship. Efforts by intolerant authorities to curb or
suffocate this freedom have always been firmly repelled. More so when public authorities
have betrayed autocratic tendencies. The phrase "freedom of speech and expression" must be
interpreted widely to mean the right to freely express one's opinions orally, in writing, or
through audio-visual means. Therefore, it also encompasses the right to spread one's opinions
via print media or any other form of communication, such as radio and television. Therefore,
every person of this free country has the right to express their opinions through print or
electronic media30. In the case of S.Rangarajan V. P. Jagjivan Ram31 Court observed that the
freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution can
only be limited through the exercise of the provisions under Article 19(2) only in the times of
necessity. However, the criticism of the Government and its policies or actions cannot be
constituted as a fair ground to restrict the freedom of speech and expression.
It is most humbly submitted that if the State is authorized to prosecute the very act of
factfinding and reporting, despite the rigidly enforced provisions of the UAPA, in which
anticipatory bail is precluded and the notion of bail is a distinct chance - therefore the only
facts that will come into the public eye will be those that are handy to the State. Draconian
laws like those pertaining to criminal defamation and sedition have frequently been utilized
by the
authorities to quash dissent. These laws have been used as political weapons against
detractors who exhibit a trend toward "thought crimes" since they are ambiguously written
and too broad. In achieving the goal of this Act, the legislature has curtailed human rights.
hence the very existence of opposition jeopardizess the fundamental rights of its people. The
authorities have detained responsible civilians such as Mr. Wisenheimer a journalist who is
upholding his rights and striving for justice under the pretense of such legislation, The
20 Life Insurance Corpn. Of India and ... V. Prof. Manubhai D. Shah Etc,1993 AIR 171, 1992 SCR
(3) 595. 30 Sakal Papers (P) Ltd., And Others V. The Union of India,1962 AIR 305, 1962 SCR (3)
84. 31 1989 SCR (2) 204, 1989 SCC (2) 574.
P. 20
Supreme Court has a responsibility to intervene and restore confidence in democracy when
such atrocious legislation infringes and flagrantly violates citizens' rights, in the case of
Indibily Creative Private Ltd. V. State of West Bengal , the Court held that the Constitution
does not permit those in authority who disagree to crush the freedom of others to believe,
think and express21.This Act predominantly penalizes behaviors based on "ideology" and
"affiliation." Thus, it is clear from this instant case that the nation is transitioning from
democracy to dictatorship.
ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE ACT OF OBTAINING VOICE SAMPLES FROM THE

PETITIONER IN THIS INSTANT CASE IS REASONABLE AND LAWFUL?
21 Indibily Creative Pvt. Ltd. V. Govt. Of West Bengal Writ Petition (Civil) No 306 of 2019.

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme court of Complexitus that the voice
sample application filed by Mr. Wisenheimer, under Art. 20(3) of the Constitution and Sec.5
of Telegraph Act 1885 is nor reasonable and lawful as to satisfy the guidelines of the Article.
3.1 RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court that the Supreme Court invokes
the power under Art.20(3) that states the defendant has the right against self-incrimination but
witness is not given the same right. Indian constitution gives the right to stay quiet as a
portion of essential rights to all the residents. This correction exists as Art. 20(3) as it gives
security to the blamed. Under Indian legal system no person can be denied rights or treated in
an inhuman or bad manner unless he is proven guilty of the offence charged. Defendant must
be informed of their rights before making statements that may incriminate them; Defendants
must not be compelled to give any statements.
Art.20(3) says that no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness
against himself. Ingredients constituting the of provision Art.20(3)
• The right to remain silent or against self-incrimination is available to the accused.
• The right immunes a person from being a witness against himself.
• It provides protection against such force which would result in him giving evidence
against himself.
3.1.1 ORIGIN OF RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENCE
The origin of the right to silence goes back to the Middle Ages in England but the clear origin
cannot be traced. During the sixteenth century, the English Courts of Star Chamber and High
Commission built up the act of convincing suspects to make a vow known as the ex-officio
vow and the blame needed to address questions, without even a proper charge, put by the
appointed authority and the examiner. In the event that an individual would not make a vow,
he could be tormented. These Star Chambers and Commissions were later nullified. The
option to quietness depends on the standard ‘nemo debet prodere ipsum’, the advantage
against selfimplication.
P. 22
In the case of Nandini Satpathey V. P.L. Dani33, it was held that the privilege stretches out
to observe and charged the same, that the articulation ‘blamed for any offense’, must mean
officially denounced in praesenti not in future, that it applies at each stage at which outfitting
of data and assortment of materials happens, that the advantage stretches out not exclusively
to the organization of the data got as proof in a criminal arraignment, however to the
extraction of the data itself. Witness against himself– A person accused of an offence cannot
be compelled to be a witness against himself. The law says nobody needs to cremate himself.
It is upon the prosecution to establish guilt. It is the duty of the officials to remind the accused
of his right to remain silent and intimate him that if he makes any statement against himself,
it can be used against him. A statement made under influence cannot be admitted in the
court.Compulsion to give evidence- If force is exercised upon the accused and he makes any
statement under such influence, it is bound to be rejected by the Court. In other words, he
cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. A statement not made voluntarily cannot
be used as a witness.
In Kalawati V. State of H. P34 -The supreme court of India held that Art. 20(3) cannot be
applied to a case where the statement was made voluntarily and was not procured by threat,
inducement or promise. Similarly, Retracted confessions, along though they have very little
probative value, are not repugnant to this clause. Art. 11 of Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, 1948 says 1. Every person accused of committing a penal offence has the right to be
presumed innocent until proven guilty in a public trail during which he has every guarantee
necessary for defending himself. 2. India among many other countries is a party to The
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966. Under Art. 14(3) (g) it lays down
that no accused shall be compelled to testify against him or to confess guilt. 3. Art. 6(1) of
The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
states that every accused/person charged has a right to a ‘fair’ trial and Art. 6(2) thereof
states: According to law, unless the person accused of an offence is proved guilty, he shall be
accorded the presumption of being innocent. The privilege provided under Art. 20(3) of the
constitution is subject to its exercise by the accused, it is in the form of privilege and the
person accused of

33 34
1978 AIR 1025; 1978 SCR (3) 608; 1978 SCC (2) 424.
1953 AIR 131; 1953 SCR 546.
an offence may choose not to exercise it. The right gives power to the accused to not ‘testify
compulsorily’ but he can ‘testify’. Thus, if the accused chooses to testify out of his free will,
he can do so.
Kartar Singh V. State of Punjab35, the Supreme Court has laid down that the officers who
bring in the accused must inform him about this right while recording statements and keep an
acknowledgement with them. There seems to be no ground on why this direction should not
be applicable in case of Customs and Central Excise. Art. 20(3) of the Indian Constitution
safeguards the right of the accused and protects him against any inhuman treatment. Three
essentials are provided to invoke this section. The right is available only to an accused person
and the right can be invoked in criminal proceedings and not civil. Section 161(2) of CrPC
protects similar rights for the accused. If a person lawfully, out of his free will gives a
statement which is evidence against himself then it would be admitted in proceedings.
Secondly, it is the duty of the officials to intimidate the person that a right to remain silent
exists in his favour. In other words, every accused must be made aware about his rights. The
accused can avail this right at any time during the criminal proceedings.
A person shall not be compelled to speak against himself, the factor of compulsion should not
be there. Thirdly, the statement given must be a witness against himself. Nobody should be
forced to cremate himself and thus this right is offered to every individual around the globe.
According to the implied charges to produce voice sample from the petitioner cannot be
compelled and he should be given clear view about the right to remain silence and the
provisions in relation with the Art. 20(3). The petitioner can deny of providing the voice
sample as there is chance to get the voice sample misused as in the first scenario the call
recording got leaked from the authorities and it is considered as the negligence of the
authority.
3.2 FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION
According to Art. 19(1)(a): All citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and
expression. This implies that all citizens have the right to express their views and opinions
P. 24
freely. This includes not only words of mouth, but also a speech by way of writings, pictures,
movies, banners, etc. It is clearly mentioned in the Art.19 that the freedom of speech and
35
1961 AIR 1787; 1962 SCR (2) 395.
expression not only include words of mouth, but also a speech by the way of writings,
pictures, etc. For instance, in the case of Romesh Thapper V. State of Madras36, Romesh
Thapper case upheld the freedom of speech and expression of the citizens.
The provincial government imposed a ban on the admission and circulation of the weekly
newspaper “Cross Roads” printed and published in Bombay in Ramesh Thapper V. State of
Madras in exercise of its powers in Section 9 (1-A) of the Act of Maintenance of the Public
Order 1949. The majority of the Court of Justice ruled the Order invalid for the freedom
provided for in point (a) of Art. 19(1). Two US decisions were referred to by the Court. The
following paragraph has been cited by the Supreme Court, with approval: Freedom of
expression as well as freedom of publishing is important to that right. The journal should also
have a title meaning without dissemination. The freedom of the press could not only be
violated if the publication’s circulation is not directly prohibited, as was the case with
Romesh Thapar, but also if some government action adversely affects the circulation of the
publication. It held that liberty of the press is an essential part of the right to freedom of
speech and expression.
In Bijoe Emmanuel V. State of Kerala37, the Supreme Court ruled that no one should be
required to sign the National Anthem “unless he has sincere moral convictions on the grounds
of his religious conviction.” Three girls, belonging to Jehovah ‘s witnesses in this case, were
suspended, sang, and never joined the school for failing to sing the National Anthem. The
High Court of Kerala upheld their expulsion from school because they had a fundamental
obligation to choose their National Hymn and committed an offense under the 1971 National
Honorary Act, Prevention of Insults. However, the Supreme Court overturned the High
Court’s ruling and found that it had committed no violation. The expulsion of children from
school in accordance with Art. 19(1), subparagraph (a) was also a violation of their basic
rights, which led to freedom of silence.
Brij Bhushan V. State of Delhi38, the Supreme Court took it for granted the fact that the
freedom of the press was an essential part of the right to freedom of speech and expression. It

is clear that the right to freedom of speech and expression carries with it the right to publish
and circulate one’s ideas, opinions and other views with complete freedom and by resorting
to
36 1950 AIR 124; 1950 SCR 594.

37 1987 AIR 748; 1986 SCR (3) 518; 1986 SCC (3) 615; JT 1986 115; 1986 SCALE (2)217. 38
1950 AIR 129; 1950 SCR 605.
all available means of publication. The right to freedom of the press includes the right to
propagate ideas and views and to publish and circulate them. However, the freedom of the
press is not absolute, just as the freedom of expression is not. Public Interest has to be
safeguard by Art. 19(1)(2) which lays down reasonable limitations to the freedom of
expression
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in Union of India V. Association for Democratic
Reforms22, “One-sided information, disinformation, misinformation and non-information, all
equally create an uninformed citizenry which makes democracy a farce. Freedom of speech
and expression includes right to impart and receive information which includes freedom to
hold opinions”. In Indian Express Newspapers v/s Union of India, it has been held that the
press plays a very significant role in the democratic machinery. The courts have duty to
uphold the freedom of press and invalidate all laws and administrative actions that abridge
that freedom. Freedom of press has three essential elements. They are:1. Freedom of access to
all sources of information,2. Freedom of publication. The above statement of the Supreme
Court illustrates that the freedom of press is essential for the proper functioning of the
democratic process. Democracy means Government of the people, by the people and for the
people; it is obvious that every citizen must be entitled to participate in the democratic
process and in order to enable him to intelligently exercise his right of making a choice, free
and general discussion of public matters is absolutely essential. This explains the
constitutional viewpoint of the freedom of press in India.
The fundamental principle which was involved in freedom of press is the “people’s right to
know”. It therefore received a generous support from all those who believe in the free flow of
the information and participation of the people in the administration; it is the primary duty of
all national courts to uphold this freedom and invalidate all laws or administrative actions
22 (2002) 5 SCC 294.
P. 26
which interfere with this freedom, are contrary to the constitutional mandate. In the light of
case laws mentioned and the provisions mentioned the petitioner expressed his point of view
to the public with the freedom of speech and expression and the freedom of press establishing
his ideas towards the public.
ISSUE 4: WHETHER DETAINING MR. WISENHEIMER UNDER UNLAWFUL

ACTIVITIES PREVENTION ACT 1967 IS LAWFUL AND LEGITIMATE?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Complextius that the charges
implied on Mr. Wisenheimer under Unlawful Activities Prevention Act is nor lawful and
legitimate.
4.1 ARTICLE 21 IN UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES PREVENTION ACT
Violation of privacy has been a on serious note in this scenario as the petitioner was not given
grounds to reveal his part of movement and was implied by the charges of Unlawful
Activities Prevention Act without much investigations, and in light of a call record as the base
evidence.
For instance, Union of India V. K.A. Najeeb23 reveals the fact that Strong contentions were
presented from both sides. Learned Additional Solicitor General argued for the appellant,
stating that the High Court erred in granting bail without adverting to the statutory rigors of
Section 43D (5) of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. The supreme court held that
restrictions on bail under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, constitutional courts can
still bail on the grounds that the fundamental rights of the accused have been violated.
Unlawful Activities Prevention Act empowers the investigating agencies to do any Act and
breach of privacy to an individual. Even within the constraints of the Unlawful Activities
23 40 Criminal Appeal No. 98

Of 2021.

Prevention Act much can be achieved if a responsive and independent judiciary remains
limited for most of the thousands incarcerated under this widely- used law.
Thwaha Faisal V. Union of India case, 202124 Recently, SC granted bail to Thwaha Faisal
and held that vague allegations of conspiracy, based on the general behavior of the accused,
or of the materials that might have been recovered from them, is not enough to file a charge
sheet under Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, Mere support to a terrorist organization as a
member or otherwise is insufficient to attract an offence under the Unlawful Activities
Prevention Act.
Asif Iqbal Tanha V. State of NCT of Delhi25,the court held that 1. Exceptionally stringent
provisions of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act are meant to apply only to exceptional
cases, and not as substitutes for ordinary penal law, there should be a distinction between the
state of exception and the state of normalcy, criticized the state’s tendency to confuse
“protest” for “terrorist activity”, The word “terrorism” has to be given a specific meaning that
distinguishes it from offences that are dealt with under ordinary law.
Iqbal Ahmed Kabir Ahmed V. State of Maharashtra26 it has been held that,
1. The allegations in the chargesheet must be individualized, factual, and particularistic.
2. The gap between what an individual is accused of, and the actual events, cannot be filled.
As it is depicted in the mentioned case law of Arup Bhuyan V. State of Assam27 Section 3(5)
cannot be read as it violates article 19 and 21 of the constitution. Hence the mere membership
of a banned organisation will not make a person a criminal unless he resorts to violence or
incites people to violence or creates public disorder by violence or incitement to violence.
24 Criminal Appeal No. 1302 Of 2021.

25 Crl.A. 39/2021.
26 Criminal Appeal No.355 Of 2021.
27 Criminal Appeal No(S). 889 Of 2007.
P. 28
Sri Indra Das V. State of Assam28, read down Section 10 of Unlawful Activities Prevention
Act and Section 3(5) of TADA29, both of which made mere membership of a banned
organization, criminal. The Court held that a literal interpretation of these provisions would
make them violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
A similar challenge was mounted against POTA30 in PUCL V. Union of India31, which too
was repelled by the Court on similar grounds. By contrast, the Unlawful Activities Prevention
Act has never been challenged on the ground of legislative competence.
Article 21 of the Constitution of India: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal
liberty except according to procedure established by law.
Kartar Singh V. State of Punjab49, the validity of TADA was challenged on the ground that
it dealt with the issue of ‘public order’, which was within the legislative domain of states.
Nevertheless, the Court upheld the validity of TADA. The Court held that ‘public order’
covered issues of lesser gravity and more serious threats covered in TADA fell within the
Union’s domain relating to national defenses.
The article 21 protection of right to health and medical care in cases where old and ailing
activists are arrested under Unlawful Activities Prevention Act and grant them bail because
the protracted pre-trial incarceration violates their crucial Article 21 right.
4.2 FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION IN UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES

PREVENTION ACT
The Unlawful Activities Prevention Act amendment allows the state to infringe the
fundamental right of any person free speech, dignity, dissent and reputation. The government
itself possessed discretionary powers to call anyone terrorist and the burden of proof to deny
the allegations rests on the person and not government.
28 Criminal Appeal No.1383 Of 2007.

29 Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (Tada).
30 Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002.
31 AIR 1997 SC 568, (1997) 1 SCC 301, 1996 Supp 10 SCR 321.

The role of the petitioner is considered as an individual freedom state of Chhattisgarh where
the Maoists population is there in a large scale. The press over there as well is not allowed to
report freely and whoever doing so is punished. The chief justice of the state has also issued
statements regarding the same to the government stating that no innocent journalists who is
practicing his right and trying to bring in light the current situation and violation of human
rights should not be stopped from practicing free journalism.
4.2.1 VIOLATION OF NATURAL JUSTICE IN UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES

PREVENTION ACT
The different provisions of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act violates the various forms
49
1961 AIR 1787, 1962 SCR (2) 395.
natural justice for instance fair hearing of the individual Audi alteram partem as well as the
reasoned decision and bias which include the different kind of bias personal and subject
matter bias, as such there is a shift in burden of proof in Unlawful Activities Prevention Act
which led to not only to the violation of natural justice but also the International Covenant On
Civil And Political Rights (ICCPR).
P. 30
PRAYER
Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
humbly prayed before this Hon'ble Court to order that:
1. Hold the Union of Complexitus liable for violation of fundamental rights of

the Sovereign.
2. Hold the State of Mightos liable for violation of fundamental rights of the Mr.
Wisenheimer of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.
3. Order that the petitioner is not bound to submit his voice sample.
4. Declare an adjudicate that the arrest made by the authorities unlawful.
AND / OR
To pass any suitable orders that it deems fit in the interest of law, equity, and a good
conscience and thus render justice. And for this, the petitioner as in the duty bound shall
humbly pray.
All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.

Place: Complextia
Date: ………...2022
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
P. 32

Xxvii P 1

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

Xxvii P 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Memorial

P. 2 Memorial for Petitioner

3. SLP Special Leave Petition

4. PIL Public Interest Litigation

9. AIR All India Reporter

10. UP Uttar Pradesh

11. SCR Supreme Court Reporter

12. SCC Supreme Court Case

13. Supp Supplement

14. Ors. Others

15. Art. Article

16. i.e., That Is

18. U.O.I Union Of India

20. Sec. Section

P. 3 Memorial for Petitioner

• M.P. JAIN, India Constitution Law, LexisNexis, Eighth Edition.

• All India Reporter (AIR)

• THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950.

• THE INDIAN TELEGRAPH ACT, 1885.

• THE UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT, 1967.

Sl. No; CASE LAWS CITATION

P. 4 Memorial for Petitioner

1. Asif Iqbal Tanha V. State Of NCT Of Delhi Crl. A. 39/2021

17. K.S. Puttaswamy And Anr. V. Union Of (2017) 10 SCC 1

P. 5 Memorial for Petitioner

18. K.K. Kouchunni V. State Of Madras AIR 1959 SC 725

P. 6 Memorial for Petitioner

P. 7 Memorial for Petitioner

Article 32 in The Constitution of Complexitus 1949 - Remedies for enforcement of rights

P. 8 Memorial for Petitioner

Background of the Case:

1. Complexitus, a largely rural populated tropical country in South Asia, a peaceloving

Crux of the Case:

P. 9 Memorial for Petitioner

P. 10 Memorial for Petitioner

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE INSTANT PETITIONS FILED BEFORE THIS HON'BLE

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE ACTS OF POLICE AND THE GOVERNMENT EXCESS

ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE ACT OF OBTAINING VOICE SAMPLES FROM THE

ISSUE 4: WHETHER DETAINING MR. WISENHEIMER UNDER UNLAWFUL

P. 11 Memorial for Petitioner

ISSUE 1. WHETHER THE INSTANT PETITIONS FILED BEFORE THIS HON'BLE

1.1 THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETTION FILED BY MR. WISENHIEMER IS

According to the Court, it is an unconstrained source of authority that cannot be restrained by

P. 13 Memorial for Petitioner

1.2 THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FILED BY THE SOVEREIGN IS

The purpose of Article 32 of the Complexitus Constitution is to guarantee the sustaining of

P. 15 Memorial for Petitioner

9 AIR 1963 SC 996.

11 Ram Krishna Dalmia V. Justice Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538.

P. 17 Memorial for Petitioner

● Article 19(g) to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or

2.1 THE ACTS OF THE AUTHORITIES ARE ARBITRARY IN NATURE

14 M. P. Sharma V. Satish Chandra, AIR 1954 SC 300.

2.2 A BAR ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PRESS IS A BAR ON THE

17 Criminal Appeal No.141 of 2021, @ SLP (Crl.) No.103 of 2021).

P. 19 Memorial for Petitioner

ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE ACT OF OBTAINING VOICE SAMPLES FROM THE

P. 21 Memorial for Petitioner

3.1 RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT

3.1.1 ORIGIN OF RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENCE

P. 23 Memorial for Petitioner

3.2 FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION

P. 25 Memorial for Petitioner