CONCOURS, 2024

Participation Code- C65

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW

CONCOURS, 2024

Before,

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF CHEEKU REPUBLIC

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF CHEEKU

REPUBLIC

WRIT PETITION NO. 1/2024

XX…..……………………..………………………………………………PETITIONER

CHEEKU REPUBLIC………………………………………………………RESPONDENT

CLUBBED WITH

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF CHEEKU

REPUBLIC

WRIT PETION NO. 2/2024

MR.DUMBPUN.TRIVEDI…..………………………………………………PETITIONER
V

CHEEKU REPUBLIC AND OTHERS…………………………………..RESPONDENT

CLUBBED WITH

APPEAL UNDER ARTICLE 134 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CHEEKU

REPUBLIC

APPEAL NO 10/2023

MR.DEDBUL RANJAN…..………………………………………………APPELIANT
V

MEMORIAL for PETITIONER Page |1

CONCOURS, 2024

CHEEKU REPUBLIC.……………..…………………………………..RESPONDENT

ON SUBMISSION TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CHEEKU REPUBLIC

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

TABLE OF CONTENT

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES......................................................................................................
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION..........................................................................................
STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................................
ISSUES RAISED .....................................................................................................................
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS .............................................................................................
1. MR. ARYAN M.’S STATEMENTS MADE IN PARLIAMENT WERE
VIOLATIVE OF THE RIGHT TO DIGNITY OF THE VICTIM UNDER
ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION
2. PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE HOUSE OF THE
LEGISLATURES ENSHRINED UNDER ARTICLE 105 OF THE
CONSTITUTION CAN’T OVERRIDE THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
PROVIDED UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(A) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
CHEEKU REPUBLIC
3. ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE CAN BE ADMISSIBLE BEFORE THE HIGH
COURT WHILE DEALING WITH THE ISSUE OF DISCHARGE
4. THE HONARABLE SUPREME COURT SHOULD GRANT DISCHARGE TO
MR. DEDBULL RANJAN, IN THE IMMEDIATE CASE
ARGUMENTS
ADVANCED .................................................................................................
A. MR. ARYAN M.’S STATEMENTS MADE IN PARLIAMENT WERE
VIOLATIVE OF THE RIGHT TO DIGNITY OF THE VICTIM UNDER
ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION
A.1 . MR. ARYAN M.’S STATEMENTS IN PARLIAMENT, ARE NOT ONLY
INSENSITIVE BUT ALSO DEROGATORY, CAUSING SEVERE HARM TO
THE DIGNITY OF THE X
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER Page |2
CONCOURS, 2024

A 2 PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE PROTECTS PARLIAMENTARIANS

FROM PROSECUTION BUT CAN'T PROTECT PARLIAMENTARIANS
WHEN THEY VIOLATE THE RIGHT TO DIGNITY OF A PERSON. LIFE
AND LIBERTY COULD POTENTIALLY PREVAIL OVER CERTAIN
ASPECTS OF PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE.
B. THE COUNCIL CONTENDS THAT PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF
THE HOUSE OF THE LEGISLATURES ENSHRINED UNDER ARTICLE 105
OF THE CONSTITUTION CAN’T OVERRIDE THE FREEDOM OF PRESS
PROVIDED UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(A) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
CHEEKU REPUBLIC
B.1 COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT 19(1)(A) OF THE
CONSTITUTION, WHICH IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT MENTIONED IN
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CHEEKU REPUBLIC, GIVES PRESS
FREEDOM TO PUBLISH PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDING AND CAN’T
OVERRIDE BY 105 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
B.2 THE COUNCIL CONTENDS ARTICLE 105 OF THE CONSTITUTION IS
NOT ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGE AGAINST ARTICLE 19(1)(a)
B.3 THE COUNSEL FURTHER CONTENDS THAT ARTICLE 361A AND
THE PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS (PROTECTION OF
PUBLICATION) ACT, 1977 PROTECT THE PUBLICATION OF
PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS IN THE HOUSE AGAINST ARTICLE
105, PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE
B.4 THE 19(1)(a) IS ALIGNED WITH THE DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES ON
WHICH OUR COUNTRY CHEEKU REPUBLIC FORMED AND MAKES
OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE ACCOUNTABLE BY PUBLISHING
THERE CONDUCT INSIDE THE HOUSE OF PARLIAMENT.
C. HIGH COURT CAN ADMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHILE DEALING
WITH THE ISSUE OF DISCHARGE
C.1 HIGH COURT CAN ADMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHILE
DEALING WITH THE ISSUE OF DISCHARGE SECTION 391 EMPOWER
THIS
C.2 THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF DISCHARGE PROCEEDINGS IS TO
PREVENT THE ABUSE OF THE LEGAL PROCESS. ALLOWING THE

MEMORIAL for PETITIONER Page |3

CONCOURS, 2024

ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS SEEN AS A MEANS TO

ACHIEVE THIS OBJECTIVE, AND APART FROM THIS, THE ADDITION
OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ALSO PROMOTES FAIR TRIAL AND
JUSTICE
C.3 IN MANY PREVIOUS INSTANCES, HONORABLE HIGH COURTS OF
THE COUNTRY ALLOWED THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL
EVIDENCE WHILE DEALING WITH DISCHARGE

D. THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT SHOULD GRANT DISCHARGE TO

MR. DEDBULL RANJAN, IN THE IMMEDIATE CASE
D.1 THERE IS INSUFFICIENCY OF MEDICAL EVIDENCE, EXAMINATON
OF MEDICAL PERSONNEL, AND DISCREPANCY IN INITIAL AND
SUBSEQUENT FINDINGS ON THESE GROUNDS. MR. DEDBULL RANJAN
SHOULD BE IMMEDIATELY DISCHARGED
D.2 THE CONTINUEL DENIAL OF DISCHARGE OF MR. DEDBULL
RANJAN, DESPITE OF CJM'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INSUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE, VIOLATES HIS RIGHT OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND FAIR
TRIAL

PRAYER……………………………………………………………………………………...

MEMORIAL for PETITIONER Page |4

CONCOURS, 2024

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

PAGE NO
1. Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 1 SCC 248. 13
2. Keshav Singh v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly, 1965 AIR 745. 15
3. SR Bommai v. Union of India, 1994 2 SCR 644. 15
4. Tej Kiran Jain and Others v. Sanjiva Reddy and Others, 1971 SCR (1) 612. 16
5. Raja Ram Pal v. Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha & Ors., 2007 3 SCC 184. 16
6. Gunupati Keshavram Reddy v. Nafisul Hasan, AIR 1954 SC 636. 16
7. Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 4 SCC 1. 16
8. Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, Ministry of Law, 2016 SCC 302. 16
9. Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. 17
10. Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 1985 SCC 220. 17
11. Gunupati Keshavram Reddy v. Nafisul Hasan, AIR 1954 SC 636. 18
12. Ministry of I&B v. Cricket Association of Bengal, 1995 SCC 600. 18
13. Article 361A of the Indian Constitution. 19
14. Parliamentary Proceedings (Protection of Publication) Act, 1977. 20
15. Section 391 of the CRPC Code. 22
16. Rambhau & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, 2001 SCC 759. 22
17. Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh & Anr v. State Of Gujarat & Ors, 2004 4 SCC 158. 22
18. Section 386 of the CRPC Code. 23
19. Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 23
20. Lakhan Singh v. Amarjeet Singh and others, Criminal Appeal No. 2191/2022. 23
21. Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 1346. 23
22. Ramesh Chandra Agrawal v. Regency Hospital Ltd, 2009 9 SCC 709. 24
23. Andiswamy Chettiar vs. Subburaj Chettiyar, Civil Appeal No. 1333 of 2023. 24
24. Babubhai v. State of Gujarat & Ors., (2010) 11 SCC 508. 25
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER Page |5
CONCOURS, 2024

25. Bhag Singh v. State of Haryana, (2007) Appeal (Civil) 1054 of 2005. 25
26. Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). 25
27. Avinash v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2010 7 SCC 543. 26
28. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Kishen, 2019 12 SCC 198 27
29. Dayal Singh and Ors. v. State of Uttaranchal, 2012 8 SCC 263. 27

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

SC SUPREME COURT
HC HIGH COURT
X SEXUAL ASSAULT VICTIM
CNS CHEEKU NYAYA SANHITA
BBP BASU BELLI BHAAT PARTY
CRPC CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
ANR ANOTHER
ORS OTHER
SCC SUPREME COURT CASES
Hon’ble HONORABLE
SEC SECTION
AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER
SCR SUPREME COURT REPORTS

MEMORIAL for PETITIONER Page |6

CONCOURS, 2024

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Writ Petition by the X:

This Hon'ble Court possesses jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the Writ Petition
filed by X seeking redress for the alleged violation of her rights under Article 21 of the
Constitution.

The Supreme Court, being the apex judicial authority, is vested with the jurisdiction to
enforce fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

Article 32 of the Constitution confers upon this Hon'ble Court the power to entertain writ
petitions to enforce fundamental rights.

Writ Petition by DumbPun Press:

The Writ Petition filed by DumbPun Press invokes the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court to
protect and uphold the fundamental right to freedom of the press under Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution.

Article 32 empowers the Supreme Court to entertain writ petitions for the protection of
fundamental rights, including freedom of the press.

The Parliamentary Proceedings (Protection of Publication) Act, 1977 is a statute that is

relevant to the issues raised in the petition, and the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to interpret
and apply the said legislation.

Criminal Appeal by Mr. DedBull Ranjan:

This Hon'ble Court possesses jurisdiction to hear the Criminal Appeal filed by Mr. DedBull
Ranjan, challenging the orders of lower courts, on matters relating to criminal law and
constitutional rights.

MEMORIAL for PETITIONER Page |7

CONCOURS, 2024

The Supreme Court, as the court of last resort, holds appellate jurisdiction over decisions of
lower courts in criminal matters. The Criminal Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court
mentioned in Article 134 of the Constitution.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

 Republic of Cheeku, a diverse nation of over 1.3 billion people with a rich historical
tapestry shaped by a significant colonial era under British rule. The framers of
Cheeku's constitution drew inspiration from English legal traditions, creating a
constitutional framework that reflects a fusion of colonial influences and the nation's
aspirations for sovereignty.
 Cheeku Republic operates as the world's largest democracy with a Parliamentary
System of Governance, embodying the principles of representative democracy and the
separation of powers among the Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary. However,
recent years have witnessed a rise in intolerant politics marked by polarization,
religious and ethnic tensions, and curtailed freedom of expression.
 The emergence of charismatic yet controversial leaders, exemplified by Daddy Dixit
of the Basu-Belli Bhaat Party (BBP), has further intensified political divisions. The
BBP, accused of employing intolerant politics, came to power in 2011, leading to
increased polarization along religious and ethnic lines.
 This situation culminated in a brutal sexual assault incident in the Cheeku Republic,
specifically in Bubu Pradesh in October, trigg
 ering widespread protests and demands for legislative reforms.
 The parliamentary discussion on revisiting sexual offense provisions in CNS 1860
AND CRPC 1973 led to a heated confrontation between Mr. Aryan M., a polarizing
cabinet minister, and opposition members. Mr. Aryan's statement, alleging a
conspiracy between the victim and the opposition, resulted in chaos, leading to the
adjournment of the parliamentary session.
 Proceedings of the parliament were being live reported by DumbPun Press, a large
media house notorious for publishing anti-government content live reporting of these
events by DumbPun Press, fueled the fire, The statement along with DumbPun Press’s

MEMORIAL for PETITIONER Page |8

CONCOURS, 2024

piece added to the public outcry and there were violent clashes between supporters of
the BBP and lower-caste student political leaders the next day
 In response to the incident, the BBP, in the majority in the lower house, initiated a
breach of privilege motion against Mr. DumbPun Trivedi, the founding editor of
DumbPun Press.
 Simultaneously, the sexual assault victim approached the Supreme Court, filing a
Writ Petition against Mr. Aryan M., alleging a violation of her Right to Dignity under
Article 21 of the Constitution.
 Mr. DumbPun also filed a writ petition against the summons notice arguing that
privileges under Article 105 cannot override the Fundamental Right to Freedom of the
press provided under Article 19(1). He also believed that the live-reporting piece was
well-protected under Article 361-A of the Constitution and the Parliamentary
Proceedings (Protection of Publication) Act, 1977.

 After 5 days after the date of publication in the DumbPun Press, The panel Debate
was organized on Apne log News Channel by Mr. Gaurav Samay Raina (Speaker,
BBP) and Mr. DedBull Ranjan (Founder, FloodConnect Foundation). During the
panel debate, heated arguments and threats were exchanged between Mr. Gaurav and
Mr. DedBull
 Mr. Gaurav, a supporter of Mr. Aryan, was assaulted by Mr. DedBull during a public
gathering organised on 01/11/2023. Mr. Gaurav filed a police complaint on
03/11/2023 and Mr. DedBull was arrested. The case went through several stages:
 In the Initial investigation Police filed an FIR and investigated the case. On
12/11/2023 Assistant Chief Judicial Magistrate committed the case to trial under
Sections 320, 322, 325 and 335 of the CNS. On 22/11/2023 Mr. DedBull filed a
discharge application in High Court, but it was dismissed. On 26/11/2023 Chief
Judicial Magistrate found insufficient evidence for grievous hurt and referred the case
for reinvestigation. A new application for discharge was filed based on the Chief
Judicial Magistrate's order but rejected by the Trial Court on 02/12/2023 then Mr.
Dedbull Ranjan applied again in the High Court under section 482 against the order of
trial court passed by 02/12/2023 but his appeal is rejected and Honarable HC says at
this stage he cant accept additional evidence other than that mentioned in section 239

MEMORIAL for PETITIONER Page |9

CONCOURS, 2024

and 240 of CRPC. Against This Mr. DedBull appealed to the Supreme Court, which
admitted the appeal
 The Supreme Court, recognizing the interconnectedness of these issues, has scheduled
a joint hearing before a 7-Judge Bench on January 7th, 2024, to address crucial
constitutional questions arising from these complex circumstances.

ISSUE RAISED

1. Whether Mr. Aryan M.’s statements made in Parliament were violative of the Right to
Dignity of the victim under Article 21 of the Constitution?
2. Whether privileges and immunities of the House of the Legislatures enshrined under
Article 105 of the Constitution override the freedom of press provided under Article
19(1)(a) in the present case?
3. Is additional evidence admissible before the High Court while dealing with the
discharge issue?
4. In the instant case, whether Mr. DedBull Ranjan can be discharged or not?

MEMORIAL for PETITIONER P a g e | 10

CONCOURS, 2024

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

A. MR. ARYAN M.’S STATEMENTS MADE IN PARLIAMENT WERE

VIOLATIVE OF THE RIGHT TO DIGNITY OF THE VICTIM UNDER
ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION

It is Humbly Submitted by the Counsel of Petitioner that Mr. Aryan M.'s statements in
Parliament, accusing the victim and opposition of a deliberate ploy, have caused severe harm
to the dignity of the sexual assault victim, violating her fundamental right to life and personal
liberty under Article 21. Counsel agrees that a special right is granted to Parliamentarians to
speak freely without any Coercion. Still, such a right can’t violate the Right to Dignity
granted in Article 21 of the Constitution. Parliamentarians are responsible for upholding
constitutional values, and Mr. Aryan M.'s statements breach this responsibility. Counsel
Seeks direction from the Honorable SC for appropriate action against Mr. Aryan M. for
violating the victim's right to dignity.

B. PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE HOUSE OF THE

LEGISLATURES ENSHRINED UNDER ARTICLE 105 OF THE
CONSTITUTION CAN’T OVERRIDE THE FREEDOM OF PRESS
PROVIDED UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(A) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
CHEEKU REPUBLIC

The Counsel of Petitioner Humbly submits that The summons and the subsequent breach of
privilege motion against Mr. DumbPun Trivedi violate the fundamental right to freedom of
the press guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The provisions of the
Parliamentary Proceedings (Protection of Publication) Act, 1977, also protect the publication
of reports on parliamentary proceedings. Article 19(1)(a) talks about Freedom Of the Press,
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER P a g e | 11
CONCOURS, 2024

which is a Fundamental Right, and the Press is Also Considered 4th Pillar of Democracy In
any Democratic Country. The press should run without any Duress or Pressure. The People
Of the Cheeku Republic have the right to see what their elected Representative is doing
inside the Parliament. The Counsel of Petitioner challenges the breach of privilege motion
and seeks protection for the press under Article 19(1)(a) and relevant statutes.

C. ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE CAN BE ADMISSIBLE BEFORE THE HIGH

COURT WHILE DEALING WITH THE ISSUE OF DISCHARGE

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the objective of discharge
proceedings is to ensure that no person is subjected to a trial when there is insufficient
evidence to justify it. Admitting additional evidence may be essential for the High Court to
make a well-informed decision on whether to discharge the accused. There is a need for the
admissibility of additional evidence during discharge proceedings for fair adjudication and
comprehensive examination of facts to ensure justice. Present case laws also support the
admission of additional evidence in discharge hearings. Restricting the High Court from
admitting additional evidence may lead to manifest injustice. If crucial evidence comes to
light post the framing of charges, it is in the interest of justice to allow its consideration to
prevent an innocent person from facing trial. The council argues that the interpretation of
procedural laws should be harmonious, ensuring that justice is served. A restrictive
interpretation prohibiting the admission of additional evidence would contradict the
overarching goal of delivering justice.

D. THE HONARABLE SUPREME COURT SHOULD GRANT DISCHARGE TO

MR. DEDBULL RANJAN, IN THE IMMEDIATE CASE

The Counsel of Petitioner Humbly submits that the lower courts, including the Chief Judicial
Magistrate and the High Court, have committed legal and procedural irregularities in
rejecting the discharge application. The reliance on false evidence and the refusal to consider
additional documents infringe upon Mr. DedBull Ranjan's fair trial rights. Counsel asserts
that the refusal to discharge him, despite the court's acknowledgment of insufficiency in
medical evidence, violates the principles of natural justice. The petitioner contends that
continuing proceedings without adequate evidence infringes upon his right to a fair trial. In
light of the insufficiency of medical evidence, non-examination of crucial witnesses,
discrepancies in findings, and the potential violation of principles of natural justice, The

MEMORIAL for PETITIONER P a g e | 12

CONCOURS, 2024

Counsel for Petitioner urges the Supreme Court to discharge Mr Dedbull Ranjan from the
criminal proceedings.

ARGUMENT ADVANCED

A. MR. ARYAN M.’S STATEMENTS MADE IN PARLIAMENT WERE

VIOLATIVE OF THE RIGHT TO DIGNITY OF THE VICTIM UNDER
ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION

It is humbly submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that Mr. Aryan M.’s Statements
Made in Parliament Were Violative Of The Right To Dignity Of The Victim Under Article
21 Of The Constitution. : Mr. Aryan M.'s statements in Parliament, accusing the X and
opposition of a deliberate ploy, have not only tarnished the reputation of the X but have also
exacerbated the trauma she has already endured as a survivor of sexual assault. These
statements go beyond political discourse and directly impact her right to live with dignity,
which is an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty under Artic`le 21 of the
Constitution.

A1. MR. ARYAN M.’S STATEMENTS IN PARLIAMENT, ARE NOT ONLY

INSENSITIVE BUT ALSO DEROGATORY, CAUSING SEVERE HARM TO THE
DIGNITY OF THE X

Human dignity is an inherent and inalienable right that every individual possesses by being
human. In the context of sexual assault, recognizing and upholding the survivor's dignity
becomes paramount. Dignity encompasses the right to be treated with respect and empathy
and without any form of degradation.

MEMORIAL for PETITIONER P a g e | 13

CONCOURS, 2024

 Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, and the
right to live with human dignity. The right to dignity includes protection from public
statements or actions that demean or degrade an individual. In 1Maneka Gandhi v.
Union of India the Supreme Court gave a new dimension to Art. 21. The Court held
that the right to live is not merely a physical right but includes the right to live with
human dignity within its ambit. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has held in Francis
vs. Union Territory (AIR 1981 SC 746) that the right to life would include the right to
live with human dignity.
 Mr. Aryan M.'s statement alleging a conspiracy between the victim and the opposition
party to play caste politics not only casts unwarranted aspersions on the character of
the victim but also perpetuates harmful stereotypes. Such statements contribute to the
victim's stigmatization and compromise her right to live a life with dignity.
 The Counsel asserts that the victim's mental and emotional well-being has been
adversely affected by the public discussion of the assault in Parliament. This impact
on the psychological integrity of the victim further underscores the violation of the
Right to Dignity. exual assault is a sensitive and deeply personal crime that inflicts
severe emotional, psychological, and sometimes physical trauma on the survivor.
Recognizing the gravity of such offenses, legal systems worldwide have developed
mechanisms to protect the identity and dignity of survivors.
 Parliament, being a public forum where legislative matters are discussed and
decisions are made, is expected to uphold the highest standards of propriety.
Discussions within Parliament should be conducted with a sense of responsibility,
especially when dealing with matters as sensitive as sexual assault.
 X may experience profound psychological distress when intimate details of the assault
are disclosed in a public setting. This disclosure not only invades the survivor's
privacy but also exposes them to public judgment, reinforcing the trauma and
inhibiting their ability to heal.
 Public disclosures in Parliament can have a chilling effect on survivors coming
forward to report incidents of sexual assault. Fear of public exposure may deter
survivors from seeking justice, thus undermining the broader societal goal of
combating sexual violence.

1
Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 1 SCC. 248.
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER P a g e | 14
CONCOURS, 2024

A2 PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE PROTECTS PARLIAMENTARIANS FROM

PROSECUTION BUT CAN'T PROTECT PARLIAMENTARIANS WHEN THEY
VIOLATE THE RIGHT TO DIGNITY OF THE PERSON , LIFE AND LIBERTY
COULD POTENTIALLY PREVAIL OVER CERTAIN ASPECTS OF
PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE.

 The Counsel contends that Parliamentarians have a constitutional duty to exercise

their privileges responsibly without causing harm to the fundamental rights of
individuals. The Counsel emphasizes that parliamentary immunity should not extend
to actions that infringe upon the Right to Dignity. While parliamentary privilege
protects open and frank discussion in Parliament, it does not absolve parliamentarians
of their constitutional duty to respect fundamental rights. The Constitution envisions a
harmonious balance between individual rights and parliamentary privileges.
 In 2Keshav Singh vs. Speaker, Legislative Assembly Honorable SC opined that the
Court could examine the violation of Article 21 on account of the exercise of powers
under Article 194(3). The vital excerpt of the judgment is that “whenever there is a
conflict between the latter part of Article 194(3) and any of the provisions of the
fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III, the latter must always yield to the former.
The majority decision, therefore, must be taken to have settled, that Article 19(1)(a)
would not apply, and Article 21 would.”
 While parliamentary privilege grants certain immunities to statements made within
the Parliament, this privilege should not be an excuse for irresponsible and baseless
remarks. Parliamentarians are responsible for upholding constitutional values, and Mr.
Aryan M.'s statements breach this responsibility.
 No allegation of a defamatory or incriminatory nature shall be made by a member
against any person unless the member has given adequate advance notice to the
Speaker and also to the Minister concerned so that the Minister may be able to make
an investigation into the matter for the purpose of a reply Provided that the Speaker
may at any time prohibit any member from making any such allegation if he is of
opinion that such allegation is derogatory to the dignity of the House or that no public
interest is served by making such allegation.

2
Keshav Singh v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly, 1965 AIR 745
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER P a g e | 15
CONCOURS, 2024

 The State has a constitutional duty to protect the dignity of its citizens. Mr. Aryan
M.'s statements, being a representative of the state, directly implicate the State's duty
to safeguard the dignity of individuals, especially victims of sexual assault. In 3S. R.
Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the court emphasized that constitutional authorities
must act responsibly to preserve democratic values.
 While parliamentary privilege protects freedom of speech within the legislative
domain, it must be harmonized with the fundamental rights of individuals. The
petitioner argues that the statements in question do not fall within the legitimate
bounds of parliamentary privilege when they erode an individual’s dignity.
 In 4Tej Kiran Jain And Others V. Sanjiva Reddy And Others., the Supreme Court
observed that defamation proceedings cannot be instituted against the
parliamentarians for their speeches made in the parliament. The only caveat is that
such speech must be in the course of parliamentary business but here in this case
speech given by Mr.Aryan is not in Parliamentary Business.
 In 5Raja Ram Pal v. Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha, honorable SC establish that It is
beyond doubt that the Supreme Court possess the jurisdiction to examine matter
relating to particular power and privilege as asserted by the legislature. Raja Ram Pal,
who published a book critical of a former Prime Minister, faced a breach of privilege
complaint. The Supreme Court ruled that although legislative bodies have certain
privileges necessary for their functioning, these cannot override fundamental rights,
including freedom of speech and expression, unless a compelling justification exists.
 Supreme Court of India in 6Gunupati Keshavram Reddy v. Nafisul Hasan held that
“Article 194(3) (i.e. privileges) was subject to Part III (i.e fundamental rights)
 In 7Kaushal Kishore v State Of Uttar Pradesh Justice Nagarathna, in a partly
dissenting judgment, opined that dignity is a quintessential and basic constituent of
the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, Article 19(1)(a)
of the Constitution cannot be cited as a reason for curtailing the rights under Article
21. She held that since the speech in the given case was disparaging, derogatory and
resembled hate speech, it could not be protected under Article 19(1)(a). court held that
facts of this case did not require balancing two fundamental rights, but rather dealt
3
SR Bommai v. Union of India, 1994 2 SCR 644.
4
Tej Kiran Jain and Others v. Sanjiva Reddy and Others, 1971 SCR (1) 612.
5
Raja Ram Pal v. Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha & Ors., 2007 3 SCC 184.
6
Gunupati Keshavram Reddy v. Nafisul Hasan, AIR 1954 SC 636.
7
Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2023) 4 SCC 1.
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER P a g e | 16
CONCOURS, 2024

with an abuse of freedom of speech used to attack the fundamental rights of an

individual.
 The argument that free speech under Article 19(1)(a) was a higher right than the right
to reputation under Article 21 was rejected by this Court in Subramanian 8Swamy vs.
Union of India, Ministry of Law 2016 SCC 302 in which Section 499 IPC
was under challenge
In summary, the counsel submits that Mr. Aryan M.'s statements in Parliament violate
X's right to live with dignity as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.
B. THE COUNSEL CONTENDS THAT PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF
THE HOUSE OF THE LEGISLATURES ENSHRINED UNDER ARTICLE 105
OF THE CONSTITUTION CAN’T OVERRIDE THE FREEDOM OF PRESS
PROVIDED UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(A) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
CHEEKU REPUBLIC
Press and Media Considered 4th Pillar of Cheeku Republic 9
Article 19(1)(a)
guarantees freedom of the press which is a fundamental Right mentioned in
Constitution of Cheeku Republic Every Citizen of Cheeku Republic have the right to
see what their elected Representative is doing inside the temple of democracy and
also there comes Article 361-A of the Constitution and the Parliamentary Proceedings
(Protection of Publication) Act, 1977 which talk about the publication of Proceeding
of Parliament . The counsel submits that the Privileges and immunities of the house of
the legislatures enshrined under article 105 can’t override Article 19(1)(A) they
should be constructed harmoniously.
B1. COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT 19(1)(A) OF THE
CONSTITUTION, WHICH IS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT MENTIONED IN
CONSTITUTION OF CHEEKU REPUBLIC, GIVE PRESS FREEDOM TO
PUBLISH PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDING AND CAN’T OVERRIDE BY
105 OF THE CONSTITUTION
 In the 10Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India case, the
Honorable Supreme Court underscored the significance of the freedom of the press in
a democratic society. It held that the press plays a vital role as the "Fourth Estate" in
ensuring government accountability. The judgment acknowledged that restrictions on
8
Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, Ministry of Law, 2016 SCC 302.
9
Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.
10
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 1985 SCC 220.
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER P a g e | 17
CONCOURS, 2024

the press must be narrowly construed, and any attempt to suppress information should
be subject to strict scrutiny.
 The framers of the Constitution recognized the critical role of the press in
disseminating information, shaping public opinion, and acting as a watchdog on the
government. This acknowledgment is reflected in the Constitution's commitment to
safeguarding freedom of the press.
 Freedom of the press enables journalists to investigate, report, and comment on
matters of public interest. It is crucial in facilitating an informed public debate, a
cornerstone of democratic decision-making. An independent press acts as a check on
government actions and ensures transparency and accountability. It serves as a bridge
between the government and the citizens, holding those in power responsible for their
decisions.
 Supreme Court of India in 11Gunupati Keshavram Reddy v. Nafisul Hasan held that
“Article 194(3) (i.e. privileges) was subject to Part III of the Constitution of cheeku
Republic
 In the case of 12
Secretary, Ministry of I&B v. Cricket Association of Bengal the
Honorable SC reaffirmed the constitutional significance of press freedom. The Court
held that restrictions on the press should not be excessive and should be imposed only
in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state,
friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency, or morality. It
emphasized that any attempt to stifle the press must be proportionate and reasonable.

B2. THE COUNCIL CONTENDS ARTICLE 105 OF THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT

ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGE AGAINST ARTICLE 19(1)(a)

 While Article 105 grants certain privileges and immunities to the House of the
Legislatures, it is essential to recognize that these privileges are not absolute. The
Constitution envisages a delicate balance between the powers and immunities of the
legislature and the fundamental rights of individuals, including the freedom of the
press. This balance should be maintained to prevent the overreach of legislative power
 Article 105 grants privileges to the Houses of Parliament, such as freedom of speech
and immunity from legal proceedings for speeches and votes. However, these
privileges are circumscribed by the need to protect the larger public interest and
11
Gunupati Keshavram Reddy v. Nafisul Hasan, AIR 1954 SC 636.
12
Ministry of I&B v. Cricket Association of Bengal, 1995 SCC 600.
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER P a g e | 18
CONCOURS, 2024

fundamental rights. The interpretation of these privileges must align with

constitutional principles and should not result in the suppression of legitimate
expression or reporting.
 The freedom of the press serves as a watchdog, ensuring transparency and
accountability in the functioning of the government and public institutions. Granting
absolute immunity to legislative proceedings without allowing reasonable reporting
would undermine the democratic principle of checks and balances. Public scrutiny
through media coverage is crucial for holding elected representatives accountable.
 Any restrictions or actions that curtail the freedom of the press should meet the
standards of necessity and proportionality. This means that limitations on press
freedom must be necessary to achieve a legitimate aim and should not be more
extensive than required for that purpose.
 While parliamentary privileges are essential, they are not absolute. They are subject to
the overarching principles of the Constitution, including fundamental rights.
Privileges should be exercised in a manner that is consistent with the larger
constitutional framework.
 The scope of privileges must be understood in the context of a delicate balance with
other fundamental rights. While Article 105 grants certain immunities, these should
not be used to suppress dissent, stifle criticism, or violate the rights of others,
including the freedom of the press.

B3. THE COUNSEL FURTHER CONTENDS THAT ARTICLE 361A AND THE
PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS (PROTECTION OF PUBLICATION) ACT,
1977 PROTECT THE PUBLICATION OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS IN
THE HOUSE AGAINST ARTICLE 105 PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE

 The wording of 13Article 361A is “No person shall be liable to any proceedings, civil
or criminal, in any court in respect of the publication in a newspaper of a substantially
true report of any proceedings of either House of Parliament or the Legislative
Assembly, or, as the case may be, either House of the Legislature, of a State, unless
the publication is proved to have been made with malice” This clearly protect Press
and allow them to publish house Proceedings and Petitioner was exercising this article
to publish parliament proceeding report on his Newspaper Dumbpun press

13
Article 361A of the Indian Constitution.
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER P a g e | 19
CONCOURS, 2024

 14
The Parliamentary Proceedings (Protection of Publication) Act, 1977 is an Indian
law that protects the publication of reports of proceedings in Parliament the main
Objective is to ensure public awareness of parliamentary proceedings by granting
legal protection to their publication in newspapers and broadcasts.
 The act says No one can be sued (civil or criminal) for publishing a substantially true
report of parliamentary proceedings in a newspaper unless it's proven to be done with
malice. Definition of "newspaper": Includes printed periodicals, news agencies, and
broadcasting stations. The Act also applies to reports of proceedings broadcast over
radio or television.
 Overall This Act safeguards freedom of the press and promotes informed public
participation in democracy. It enables newspapers and broadcasters to report on
parliamentary debates and decisions without fear of legal repercussions.
B4. THE ARTICLE 19(1)(a) IS ALIGNED WITH THE DEMOCRATIC
PRINCIPLES ON WHICH OUR COUNTRY CHEEKU REPUBLIC FORMED
AND MAKES OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE ACCOUNTABLE BY
PUBLISHING THERE CONDUCT INSIDE THE HOUSE OF PARLIAMENT
 Democracy is a foundational principle of the Indian Constitution, and it is enshrined
in the Preamble as a key feature of the country's governance. The essence of
democracy lies in the active participation of citizens, the protection of individual
rights, and the accountability of elected representatives.
 Freedom of the press is considered one of the pillars of a vibrant democracy. It serves
as a crucial check on governmental power, provides a forum for diverse voices and
opinions, and ensures that citizens are informed, enabling them to make informed
decisions.
 The press plays a pivotal role in democracy by acting as a watchdog, exposing
corruption, scrutinizing government actions, and facilitating public discourse. Any
undue restriction on the freedom of the press can have a detrimental effect on the
democratic fabric of the country.
 Democracy thrives when citizens are well-informed and actively participate in the
democratic process. The press bridges the government and the public, holding public
officials accountable for their actions. Any curtailment of press freedom can impede
the ability of citizens to make informed decisions.
14
Parliamentary Proceedings (Protection of Publication) Act, 1977.
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER P a g e | 20
CONCOURS, 2024

 Public accountability is a foundational principle of democracy. It ensures that those in

power, including elected representatives, are answerable for their actions and
decisions to the citizens they serve. This accountability is essential for maintaining the
trust and integrity of democratic institutions. Public accountability relies on
transparency and the availability of information. A well-informed citizenry is better
equipped to participate in the democratic process, make informed choices, and hold
public officials accountable. Access to accurate and unbiased information, including
through the media, is crucial for achieving this
 The media, often referred to as the "Fourth Estate," plays a vital role in ensuring
public accountability. Journalists act as watchdogs, scrutinizing the actions of the
government and public officials, and providing the public with the information needed
to make informed decisions.Freedom of the press, protected under Article 19(1)(a) of
the Indian Constitution, is a cornerstone of democratic societies. It allows journalists
to investigate, report, and disseminate information without fear of censorship,
contributing to the public's ability to hold those in power accountable.
 Public accountability thrives in an environment where there is robust debate and
discussion. Parliamentary proceedings, as well as media reporting on these
proceedings, contribute to the exchange of ideas, scrutiny of policies, and examination
of government actions.
 While parliamentary privileges are crucial for the effective functioning of the
legislature, they should not shield actions that undermine public accountability. The
necessity of public accountability ensures that the exercise of parliamentary privileges
aligns with the democratic values of openness, responsibility, and responsiveness.
 The principle recognizes that a balance must be struck between the privileges of the
legislature and the need for public accountability. It underscores the importance of
maintaining checks and balances to prevent the abuse of power and to uphold the
principles of democratic governance.
C. ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE CAN BE ADMISSIBLE BEFORE THE HIGH
COURT WHILE DEALING WITH THE ISSUE OF DISCHARGE
It is Humbly submitted before the honourable Supreme Court that The objective of
discharge proceedings is to ensure that no person is subjected to a trial when there is
insufficient evidence to justify it. Admitting additional evidence may be essential for
the High Court to make a well-informed decision on whether to discharge the
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER P a g e | 21
CONCOURS, 2024

accused. Additionally, Admission of additional evidence is becomes necessary ensure

that justice done rightly and fair.

C1. HIGH COURT CAN ADMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHILE DEALING

WITH THE ISSUE OF DISCHARGE SECTION 391 OF CRPC EMPOWER THIS

 15
Section 391 of the CRPC Code empowers the court to admit additional evidence at
the appellate stage if it considers such additional evidence necessary. The power to be
exercised is discretionary and cannot be utilized to fill up gaps and lacunae in the
evidence.
 The appellate court's power to receive additional evidence under section 391 of the
Code fell for consideration in 16Rambhau and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and it
was held that the powers under the section being like an exception shall always have
to be exercised with caution and circumspection to meet the ends of justice
 The nature, scope and object of the powers to be exercised under section 391 of the
Code was also examined in 17Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh & Anr vs State Of Gujarat
&
Ors and it was held that though under the provision a wide discretion has been
conferred, the powers could not be exercised for filling up any lacunae and the
appellate court while directing taking of additional evidence was required to record
reasons for the same. The powers under section 391 of the Code were held to be like
exception to the general rule and it was stated that the same must be exercised with
great care.
 Section 391 is one such exception to the ordinary rule. If the appellate Court considers
additional evidence to be necessary, the provisions in 18Section 386 and Section 391
have to be harmoniously considered to enable the appeal to be considered and
disposed of also in the light of the additional evidence as well The legislative intent in
enacting Section 391 appears to be the empowerment of the appellate court to see that
justice is done between the prosecutor and the persons prosecuted. If the appellate
Court finds that certain evidence is necessary to enable it to give correct and proper
findings, it would be justified in taking action under Section 391.

15
Section 391 of the CRPC Code.
16
Rambhau & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, 2001 SCC 759.
17
Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh & Anr v. State Of Gujarat & Ors, 2004 4 SCC 158.
18
Section 386 of the CRPC Code.
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER P a g e | 22
CONCOURS, 2024

 The powers under the section have been held akin to those under 19Order 41 Rule 27
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and in view thereof, additional evidence cannot
be tendered at the appellate stage as a matter of right, and the power to be exercised
by the appellate court is to be based on discretion, sound judicial principles and in the
interest of justice.
 In 20
Lakhan Singh VS Amarjeet Singh and other the High Court allowed an
application moved by the accused-applicant (appellant before the High Court-
respondent No. 1 herein) with reference to Sections 311 and 391 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 and directed the Trial Court to take on record the additional
evidence and documents, as mentioned in the subject application; and to send the file
back along with additional evidence.

C2. THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF DISCHARGE PROCEEDINGS IS TO PREVENT

THE ABUSE OF THE LEGAL PROCESS. ALLOWING THE ADMISSION OF
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS SEEN AS A MEANS TO ACHIEVE THIS
OBJECTIVE, AND APART FROM THIS, THE ADDITION OF ADDITIONAL
EVIDENCE ALSO PROMOTES FAIR TRIAL AND JUSTICE

 In 21Mohanlal Shamji Soni vs Union of India, the Honorable SC held that the Accused
should given full Opportunity to Prove his innocence; admission of additional
evidence helps court to achieve this objective
 Allowing the presentation of additional evidence at the discharge stage ensures that
the accused is afforded a fair opportunity to contest the charges and present relevant
material that might impact the decision. The council further asserts that the right to a
full defense is a fundamental aspect of a fair trial. Any restrictions on presenting
additional evidence may curtail the accused's ability to counter the charges effectively
and could lead to an incomplete assessment. Legal proceedings are dynamic, and new
evidence may come to light after framing charges. Allowing the introduction of
additional evidence acknowledges the evolving nature of cases and ensures that the
court is equipped with all relevant information. Counsel argues that a rigid prohibition
on presenting additional evidence may lead to potential miscarriages of justice. If, for

19
Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
20
Lakhan Singh v. Amarjeet Singh and others, Criminal Appeal No. 2191/2022.
21
Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 1346.
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER P a g e | 23
CONCOURS, 2024

instance, exculpatory evidence emerges post the framing of charges, the accused
should be permitted to bring such evidence to the court.
 The right to a full defense is intertwined with the principles of due process and a fair
trial. Allowing the accused to present additional evidence ensures that the legal
process is transparent. At the stage of framing charges, the evidence available might
be incomplete or subject to reinterpretation. Allowing the accused to introduce
additional evidence ensures that a more comprehensive and accurate picture of the
case can be presented, contributing to the fairness and reliability of the legal
proceedings.
 In 22Ramesh Chandra Agarwal v. Regency Hospital Ltd the Supreme Court held that
in the interest of justice, the court has the discretion to allow additional evidence if it
is satisfied that such evidence is necessary for a just decision. This decision
exemplifies the court's recognition of the evolving nature of legal disputes.

C3. IN MANY PREVIOUS INSTANCES, HONORABLE HIGH COURTS OF THE

COUNTRY ALLOWED THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHILE
DEALING WITH DISCHARGE TO ENSURE NATURAL JUSTICE DONE TO
ACCUSED

 SC order in 23Andi Swamy Chettiar vs Subburaj Chettiyar case SC had held that an
appellate court, while hearing the matter finally, could exercise jurisdiction one way
or the other under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, specially
clause (b).
 In the case of 24Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, the court set a significant precedent by
allowing the admission of additional evidence at the discharge stage. The key
arguments and observations from this case include. The court acknowledged that the
primary purpose of discharge proceedings is to prevent the abuse of the legal process.
Allowing the admission of additional evidence was seen to achieve this objective.
Emphasizing the importance of a fair decision, the court held that the High Court
should have the flexibility to consider additional evidence if it is crucial for arriving at
a just and equitable decision. The court recognized that a restrictive approach, barring
the admission of additional evidence, might lead to manifest injustice. In the interest

22
Ramesh Chandra Agrawal v. Regency Hospital Ltd, 2009 9 SCC 709.
23
Andiswamy Chettiar vs. Subburaj Chettiyar, Civil Appeal No. 1333 of 2023.
24
Babubhai v. State of Gujarat & Ors., 2010 11 SCC 508.
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER P a g e | 24
CONCOURS, 2024

of justice, the High Court should be empowered to consider all relevant material.The
case underscored the discretionary powers of the High Court in criminal proceedings.
Judicial discretion was seen as a tool to be used judiciously to balance the interests of
the accused and the interests of justice. The court's decision in Babubhai emphasized
that procedural fairness demands a certain degree of flexibility. Prohibiting the
admission of additional evidence rigidly would be inconsistent with the principles of
fairness. The decision in this case was in harmony with the statutory framework,
recognizing that the CrPC provides the High Court with broad powers to ensure a fair
and just decision at every stage of the criminal proceedings.
 In 25Bhag Singh v. State of Haryana the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the
prosecution to submit a fresh medical report that had become available after the filing
of the discharge application. The Court concluded that the report contained vital
information relevant to the charges against the accused.
 In India, High Courts have the discretion to admit additional evidence while dealing
with the discharge issue under 26Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This
power is exercised cautiously and judiciously, considering various factors like the
nature of the evidence, its relevance and stage of the proceedings, and potential
prejudice to the parties.
D. THE HONARABLE SUPREME COURT SHOULD GRANT DISCHARGE TO
MR. DEDBULL RANJAN, IN IMMEDIATE CASE
The counsel, on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the circumstances surrounding
the alleged assault on Mr. Gaurav Samay Raina do not warrant the continuation of
criminal proceedings against him. The council seeks discharge, contending that the
evidence presented is insufficient to establish the charges under Sections 320, 322,
325, and 335 of the Cheeku Nyaya Sanhita (C.N.S.).

D.1 THERE IS INSUFFICIENCY OF MEDICAL EVIDENCE, NON EXAMINATON

OF MEDICAL PERSONNEL AND DISCREPANCY IN INITIAL AND
SUBSEQUENT FINDINGS ON THESE GROUNDS MR. DEDBULL RANJAN
SHOULD BE IMMEADIATLY DISCHARGED

25
Bhag Singh v. State of Haryana, (2007) Appeal (Civil) 1054 of 2005.
26
Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER P a g e | 25
CONCOURS, 2024

 The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namanapatnam, in his order dated 26.11.2023,

highlighted the lack of sufficient medical evidence. The court observed that no
hospital document adequately supported the doctor's certificate indicating grievous
hurt. This raises a serious question about the reliability and sufficiency of the medical
evidence.
 The Chief Judicial Magistrate noted that the doctor who issued the medico-legal
report was not examined, and his signature had not been verified. This omission raises
doubts about the veracity of the medical evidence presented against Mr. DedBull. The
absence of examination by medical personnel undermines the credibility of the
prosecution's case.
 The court's observation that, upon the production of additional information, it was
revealed that there was no laceration to Mr. Gaurav's skull questions the consistency
and reliability of the prosecution's evidence. The initial findings, as opposed to the
subsequent revelations, create a reasonable doubt about the accuracy of the charges.
 The counsel contends that the Chief Judicial Magistrate's refusal of the discharge
application, Namanapatnam, was based on an erroneous interpretation of the law. The
court's reliance on false evidence and failure to consider the discrepancies in the
medical findings demonstrate a legal error that justifies intervention by higher courts.
 In the case 27
Avinash v. State of Madhya Pradesh The accused faced charges of
causing grievous hurt. The only medical report relied upon was incomplete and lacked
details on the nature and extent of injuries. The Supreme Court deemed it insufficient
to establish the severity of the hurt, leading to the accused's discharge.
 In the case of 28
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Kishen The accused faced charges of
attempt to murder. However, the victim suffered no readily discernible external
injuries, and the prosecution failed to conduct crucial internal examinations. The
Supreme Court deemed the evidence incomplete and discharged the accused due to
the lack of vital medical corroboration.
 By giving examples above cases the counsel plead before the honorable Supreme
court to Discharge Mr.Dedbull Ranjan on the grounds of Insufficient medical
evidence.

27
Avinash v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2010] 7 SCC 543.
28
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Kishen, [2019] 12 SCC 198.
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER P a g e | 26
CONCOURS, 2024

D2. THE CONTINUEL DENIAL OF DISCHARGE OF MR. DEDBULL

RANJAN, DESPITE CJM'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INSUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE, VIOLATES HIS RIGHT OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND FAIR
TRIAL.
The counsel submit before this honourable supreme court that the refusal to discharge
him, despite the court's acknowledgment of insufficiency in medical evidence,
constitutes a violation of principles of natural justice, and also Continuing
proceedings without adequate evidence infringes upon his right to a fair trial.
 The petitioner avers that the order of the Assistant Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Namanapatnam, relied on false evidence, as acknowledged by the subsequent
findings. The reliance on inaccurate information compromises the integrity of the
judicial process and justifies the intervention of higher courts.
 The Counsel contends that the Chief Judicial Magistrate's refusal of the discharge
application by Namanapatnam was based on an erroneous interpretation of the law.
The court's reliance on false evidence and failure to consider the discrepancies in the
medical findings demonstrate a legal error that justifies intervention by higher courts.
 The Counsel emphasizes the overarching need to protect individual rights and
liberties. Continuing the criminal proceedings without a solid evidentiary foundation
compromise Mr. DedBull's right to a fair trial and subjects him to undue hardship.
 29
Dayal Singh and Ors. v. State of Uttaranchal when the court emphasized thus:.
Where our criminal justice system provides safeguards of fair trial and innocent till
proven guilty to an accused, there it also contemplates that a criminal trial is meant for
doing justice to all, the accused, the society and a fair chance to prove to the
prosecution. Then alone can law and order be maintained. The courts do not merely
discharge the function to ensure that no innocent man is punished, but also that a
guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties of the judge. During the course of
the trial, the learned Presiding Judge is expected to work objectively and in a correct
perspective. Where the prosecution attempts to misdirect the trial on the basis of a
perfunctory or designedly defective investigation, there the Court is to be deeply
cautious and ensure that despite such an attempt, the determinative process is not
subverted. For truly attaining this object of a ―fair trial‖, the Court should leave no
stone unturned to do justice and protect the interest of the society as well.

29
Dayal Singh and Ors. v. State of Uttaranchal, 2012 8 SCC 263.
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER P a g e | 27
CONCOURS, 2024

 Counsel submit that the legal proceedings against him should be discharged based on
violating his right to fair trial and natural justice, abuse of the legal process, the prima
facie evaluation of evidence, judicial error, and the overarching need to protect
individual rights. The Counsel for petitioner seeks the Supreme Court's intervention to
rectify the legal anomalies and uphold the principles of justice and fairness.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore in the light of the facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced, and
authorities cited, may this Hon’ble bench be pleased to adjudge and declare that:

1. For an immediate quashing of the impugned actions and statements made by Mr. Aryan M.
in Parliament, which are violative of the Right to Dignity of the sexual assault victim under
Article 21 of the Constitution.

2. For a declaration that the privileges and immunities of the House of the Legislatures under
Article 105 of the Constitution cannot override the freedom of the press provided under
Article 19(1)(a) in the present case.

3. For a declaration that additional evidence is admissible before the High Court while
dealing with the discharge issue, and for an appropriate order allowing the presentation of
such evidence.

4. Discharge Mr. DedBull Ranjan in immediate Case on the grounds of of insufficient

Evidence

And/Or

Pass any other order that it may deem fit in the interest of justice, equality,

and good conscience.

s/d

On behalf of Petitioners

MEMORIAL for PETITIONER P a g e | 28