MEMORIALON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

TC -11

MBA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2022

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF

COMPLEXITUS

W.P.No.____/2022
Mr.Weisenheimer……………………………………………PETITIONER
v.
The Republic of Complexitus……………………………. RESPONDENT

WITH
SLP No._____/2022
Mr.Weisenheimer……………………………………………PETITIONER
v.
The Republic of Complexitus………………………………………. RESPONDENT

AND
W.P.No____/2022
The Sovereign…….…………………………………………PETITIONER
v.
The Republic of Complexitus……………………………. RESPONDENT

PETITIONS INVOKED U/A 32 & 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF REPUBLIC OF

COMPLEXITUS

MOST REVERENTLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HONOURABLE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT COURT OF COLLECTIVE METAVERSAL STATES

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1
 MEMORIALON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 8

SUMMARY OF FACTS 9

ISSUES RAISED 10

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 11

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 12

1. WHETHER THE INSTANT CASE IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE 12

HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF
COMPLEXITUS OR NOT?

2. WHETHER THE DETENTION OF MR. WISENHEIMER VALID 17

UNDER THE UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES PREVENTION ACT, 1967?

3. WHETHER THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS MENTIONED UNDER 21

THE CONSTITUTION OF COMPLEXITUS IS VIOLATED?

PRAYER 26

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

2
 MEMORIALON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1. & And

2. AIR All India Report

3. Art. Article

4. Ed. Edition

5. Hon’ble Honourable

6. id. Ibidem

7. LJ Law Journal

8. No. Number

9. Ors. Others

10. Para. Paragraph

11. Pt. Point

12. Rep. Representative

13. UAPA The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act

14. w.r.t With Respect To

3
 MEMORIALON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES REFERRED
i. Andhra Industrial Works v. Chief Controller of Imports, AIR 1974 SC 1539.
ii. Fertilizer Corp. Kamgar Union v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 344.
iii. Calcutta Gas Co. Ltd. V. State of West Bengal, AIR 1962 SC 1044.
iv. R. v. Secy. of State, AIR 1997 SC 433
v. Mathai @Joby v. George (2010) 4SCC 358
vi. Suriyakala v. A. Mohandoss, (2007) 9 SCC 196. 3 AIR 1950 SC 169.
vii. Tirupati Balaji Developers Pvt. Ltd. V. State of Bihar AIR 2004 SC 2351
viii. Jamshed Hormusji Wadia V. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai AIR 2004 SC 1815
ix. Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v CIT West Bengal (1955) AIR 65 (SC)
x. A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2007 SC 1546.
xi. Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2004 SC 3467.
xii. Aero Traders Private Limited v. Ravinder Kumar Suri, AIR 2005 SC 15.
xiii. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 4618.
xiv. Pritam Singh v. State 1992 AIR 1277
xv. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research v K. G. S. Bhatt (1989) AIR 1972 (SC)
xvi. Sir Chunilal Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. Century Spinning & Mfg. Co. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC
1314.
xvii. M. Janardhana Rao v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax AIR 2005 SC 1309.
xviii. 15 Sir Chunilal Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. Century Spinning & Mfg. Co. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC
1314
xix. Ashok Kumar Pandey v. The State of West Bengal, AIR 2004 SC 280
xx. Chhetriya Pradushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti v. State of Uttar Pradesh,AIR 1990 SC
2060
xxi. L. Chandrakumar V. Union of India AIR 1997SC112594
xxii. A.V. Venkateshwaran v. R.S.Wadhwani AIR 1961 SC 1906
xxiii. National Green Tribunal Act 2010 20 AIR 1979 SC 1889
xxiv. Jyotendrasinghi v. S.I. Tripathi 1993 AIR 1991
xxv. Om Prakash v. Emperor AIR 1948 Nag, 199

4
 MEMORIALON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

xxvi. Superintendent Central Prison v. Dr Ram Manohar Lohia 1960 SCR (2) 821
xxvii. Union of India v. Assn. for Democratic Reforms 2002 (3) SCR 294
xxviii. R.M. Malkani v. The State of Maharashtra 1973 AIR 157
xxix. S. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab 1964 SCR (4) 733
xxx. Toman Lal Sahu v. The State of Chhattisgarh (2021) 4 CGLJ 26
xxxi. K.L.D Nagasree v. Government of India AIR 2007 AP 102
xxxii. Aniruddha Bahal vs. State of Delhi 2010 172 DLT 269
xxxiii. Sri Bhardwaj Media Pvt. Ltd. vs. State (W.P. (Crl.) Nos. 1125 and 1126/2007
xxxiv. Ramlila Maidan v UOI (2012) 5 SCC 1.
xxxv. N.K Bajpai v UOI (2012) 4 SCC 653.
xxxvi. Romesh Tapper v State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124.
xxxvii. OK Ghosh v Ex Joseph, AIR 1960 SC 633.
xxxviii. Madhu Limaye v SDM Monghyr, AIR 1971 SC 2486.
xxxix. Santosh Singh v Delhi Administration, AIR 1973 SC 1091.
xl. The State Of Bihar vs Shailabala Devi, 1952 AIR 329
xli. State v M Krishna Mohan (2007) 14 SCC 667.
xlii. Prakhar Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1958 Punj 204.
xliii. RM Malkani v State of Maharashtra ,AIR 1960 SC 756.
xliv. Yusufalli v State of Maharashtra , AIR 1968 SC 147.
xlv. Poolandi v Superintendent , Central Excise , AIR 1992 SC 44.
xlvi. RM Malkani v State of Maharashtra, ,AIR 1960 SC 756.
xlvii. Suchita Srivatsava v Chandigarh Administartion, (2009) 9 SCC 1.
xlviii. Hukam Chand Shayam lal v UOI , AIR 1976 SC 789.

STATUTES REFERRED
i. The Constitution Of India,1950
ii. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967

5
 MEMORIALON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

iii. The Identification Of Prisoners Act,1920

iv. The Code of Criminal Procedure Act, 1973
v. The Information Technology Act, 2000

BOOKS REFERRED
1. Black s‟ Law Dictionary, 8th edition
2. Cambridge Learners Dictionary, 1st edition
3. Constitution of India by J.N. Pandey,44th edition 2007
4. Constitution of India by D.D. Basu, 14th edition 2009
5. Constitution of India by V.N. Shukla,10th edition 2006
6. Constitutional of India by H.M. Seervai, Vol. I & II, 4th edition 2006
7. Public Interest Litigation in India by Videh Upadhyay
8. Shorter Constitution of India by D.D. Basu in the , Fourteenth Edition, 2009
1. Black s‟ Law Dictionary, 8th edition
2. Cambridge Learners Dictionary, 1st edition
3. Constitution of India by J.N. Pandey,44th edition 2007
4. Constitution of India by D.D. Basu, 14th edition 2009
5. Constitution of India by V.N. Shukla,10th edition 2006
6. Constitutional of India by H.M. Seervai, Vol. I & II, 4th edition 2006
7. Public Interest Litigation in India by Videh Upadhyay
8. Shorter Constitution of India by D.D. Basu in the , Fourteenth Edition, 2009
i. Black s‟ Law Dictionary, 8th edition
ii. Cambridge Learners Dictionary, 1st edition
iii. Constitution of India by J.N. Pandey,44th edition 2007
iv. Constitution of India by D.D. Basu, 14th edition 2009
v. Constitution of India by V.N. Shukla,10th edition 2006
vi. Constitutional of India by H.M. Seervai, Vol. I & II, 4th edition 2006
vii. Public Interest Litigation in India by Videh Upadhyay
viii. Shorter Constitution of India by D.D. Basu in the , Fourteenth Edition, 2009

WEBSITES REFERRED:
i. www.indiankanoon.com
ii. www.legalservicesindia.com

6
 MEMORIALON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

iii. www.legalblog.in
iv. www.judis.nic.in
v. www.lawyersclubindia.com
vi. www.lawctopus.com
vii. www.legalindia.com
viii. www.manupatra.com
ix. www.scconline.com
x. www.legitquest.com

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

7
 MEMORIALON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

I. Writ Petition No.__ of 2022- Mr. Weisenheimer v. The Republic of Complexitus

The Petitioner has filed a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of The Republic of
Complexitus in the matter of Mr. Weisenheimer v. The Republic of Complexitus under Article
32 of the Constitution of The Republic of Complexitus against the dentition made under
UPAP,1967

II. Special Leave Petition No.__ of 2022 -Mr.Weisenheimer v. The State of Mightos
The Petitioner has filed a Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of The
Republic of Complexitus in the matter of The State of Mightos under Article 136 of the
Constitution of The Republic of Complexitus against the judgement and Order of the Hon’ble
High Court at Mightos.

III. Writ Petition No.__ of 2022- The Sovereign v. The Republic of Complexitus
The Petitioner has filed a PIL before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of The Republic of
Complexitus in the matter of The Sovereign v. The Republic of Complexitus under Article 32 of
the Constitution of The Republic of Complexitus .
All these petitions were clubbed together by the Hon’ble Supreme Court which is backed up by
the Art.139A.
The respondent has appeared to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of The Republic of Complexitus in
response to the petitions filed by the petitioners.

SUMMARY OF FACTS

8
 MEMORIALON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

● The Republic of Complexitus is a tropical country in South Asia and is one of the fastest

growing economies in the world, where Mightos is a state in the Southern part of
Complexitus is considered to be one of the most developed and progressive states.

● Due to large-scale mushrooming of industries certain protests against air and water pollution

caused by the industries has been carried out. Bovinedung(BPL)Private Ltd is a fertiliser
manufacturing company that had certain violations of environmental law and the same has
been dealt by Mightos Pollution Control Board. During the proceedings, on June 12, 2022
due to a leakage happened in BPL ,people developed respiratory problems, which led to a
protest organised by general public, volunteers of Tree Faith,an NGO, etc.. which suddenly
turned violent from 9th day.

● The authority is used to certain measures to bring law and order in the area where the protest

continued to be unabated for a few days even after imposition of section 144 of CcPC. In the
meantime Mr .Weizenheimer, a journalist associated with the Sovereign , a popular news
channel exaggerated the scenes in protest and his statements led to more violence all over the
state. The authority had intercepted the phone calls of Mr.Weizenheimer as he had reporting
of several controversial issues in the past for aiding certain groups and found he had received
the order or a request made by an unknown person to sensationalise & exaggerate the BPL
issue

● Therefore he was detained under UAPA, 1967. His detention is challenged before the

Supreme Court of Complexitus, by invoking Article 32 of the Constitution of Complexitus.

The State, pursuant to an FIR, commences investigation, collects material and thereafter, files
an application before the Special Court for a direction to Mr. Wisenheimer to provide his
voice sample, which application is allowed and a revision filed against the said order is also
dismissed by the High Court of Mightos. Challenging the same, a Special Leave Petition is
filed before the Supreme Court of Complexitus, raising several constitutional and other
issues, which according the Mr. Wisenheimer requires consideration and/or reconsideration
by the Court. “The Sovereign‟ also filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the
Supreme Court of Complexitus against the police and government .The Supreme Court
tagged all matters together and the matter is now here.

9
 MEMORIALON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

ISSUES RAISED

1. WHETHER THE INSTANT CASE IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE

HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF COMPLEXITUS OR
NOT?
2. WHETHER THE DETENTION OF MR. WISENHEIMER VALID UNDER THE
UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES PREVENTION ACT, 1967?
3. WHETHER THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS MENTIONED UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION OF COMPLEXITUS IS VIOLATED?

10
 MEMORIALON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1.WHETHER THE INSTANT CASE IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF COMPLEXITUS OR NOT?
The Respondent humbly submits that the present petitions are not maintainable in this Hon’ble
Court in the light of the following arguments:
a) The Writ Petition filed by Mr. Weizenheimer is not maintainable under Art. 32 since the right
guaranteed under Art. 19(1) & is subject to reasonable restrictions under Art.19(2) ,19(3) &
procedure established by law. The decision of the State was in the interest of public order.
b) The SLP filed by Mr. Weizenheimer is not maintainable under Art.136 since there was no
departure from legal procedure and no substantial question of law or a pure point of law is raised
for consideration.
c) The PIL filed by the news channel The Sovereign seeks for the enforcement of the
constitutional rights. There has been no violation of any fundamental right by the State as
contained in Part III of the Constitution. Therefore, the PIL is not maintainable under Art.32 of
the Constitution.

2. WHETHER THE DETENTION OF MR. WISENHEIMER VALID UNDER THE

UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES PREVENTION ACT, 1967?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that, the detention of Mr. Wisenheimer
under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 is valid. It is humbly submitted that there is
no use of arbitrary power of the government on Mr. Wisenheimer who had failed to perform his
lawful duty as journalist.

3.WHETHER THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS MENTIONED UNDER THE

CONSTITUTION OF COMPLEXITUS IS VIOLATED?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court of Complexitus that the Freedom of
Press which is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution is not violated and the
interception of the phone calls of a journalist is not violative of the basic fundamental right.

11
 MEMORIALON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. WHETHER THE INSTANT CASE IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF COMPLEXITUS OR NOT?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the instant matter is not maintainable before
the Court of Law. The petitioner lacks the essential ingredients to maintain the matter before the
apex Court. Even though the Hon’ble Court has clubbed the matters, there are certain issues
regarding maintainability of the case and the same must be highlighted before this Court to
prevent any miscarriage of justice.

1.1. THE WRIT PETITION SUBMITTED BY MR. WEIZENHEIMER IS NOT

MAINTAINABLE
It is a well settled principle that no action lies in the Supreme Court under Art. 32 unless there is
an infringement of a Fundamental Right,1 as the Supreme Court has previously emphasized that
“The violation of Fundamental Right is the sine qua non of the exercise of the right conferred by
Art. 32.”2 In the present case, it was the act of the petitioner which breached the ethics of the
journalism under Norms of Journalistic Conduct issued by the Press Council Of India which
consequently attracted detention, and hence no Fundamental Right has been infringed.
Adding on to the above, a person acquires a locus standi, when he has to have a personal or
individual right which has been violated or threatened to be violated 3.Since, no right of petitioner
has been infringed, he has no locus standi before the Court.
In R. v. Secy. of State4 for Home Affairs, it has been held that a person is not entitled to be
released on a petition of habeas corpus if there is no illegal restraint. "The question for a habeas
corpus court is whether the subject is lawfully detained. If he is, the writ cannot issue." And in
the present case where the detention is lawfully made by the authorized personnel under
UAPA,1967 in furtherance to protect social order that has been disrupt by the petitioner by

1 Andhra Industrial Works v. Chief Controller of Imports, AIR 1974 SC 1539.

2 Fertilizer Corp. Kamgar Union v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 344.
3 Calcutta Gas Co. Ltd. V. State of West Bengal, AIR 1962 SC 1044.
4R. v. Secy. of State, AIR 1997 SC 433

12
 MEMORIALON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

falsely exaggerating the news after the order/request made by an unknown person which tend to
be antisocial & led to more violence.
Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the present writ petition challenging the detention is not
maintanable.
1.2. THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION BY MR. WEIZENHEIMER IS NOT
MAINTAINABLE
It is humbly submitted that SLP is not maintainable as Special Leave cannot be granted when
substantial justice has been done and no exceptional or special circumstances exist for case to be
maintainable even if there is error of law or fact in the impugned order.5
The phraseology of Article 136 clearly states that Article 136 does not confer a right of appeal on
a party but vests a vast discretion in the Supreme Court 6 which is meant to be exercised on the
considerations of justice, call of duty and eradicating injustice.7
In Jamshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai this Court observed that the
discretionary power of the Supreme Court is plenary in nature in the sense that there are no
words in Article 136 itself qualifying that power. 8It being an exceptional and overriding power,
naturally, has to be exercised sparingly and with caution and only in special and extraordinary
situations.9
Although the power has been held to be limitless10, adjunctive, and unassailable11, in Aero
Traders Private Limited v. Ravinder Kumar Suri 12 and in M. C. Mehta v. Union of India13 , the
court held that the powers under Article 136 should be exercised with caution and in accordance
with law .
The SC observed in the Pritam Singh v. State14, that the wide discretionary power with which
this court is invested under it is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases only and as far
as possible a more or less uniform standard should be adopted in granting special leave in the
wide range of matters which can come up before it under article 136.
5 Mathai @Joby v. George (2010) 4SCC 358
6 Suriyakala v. A. Mohandoss, (2007) 9 SCC 196. 3 AIR 1950 SC 169.
7 Tirupati Balaji Developers Pvt. Ltd. V. State of Bihar AIR 2004 SC 2351
8 Jamshed Hormusji Wadia V. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai AIR 2004 SC 1815
9 Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v CIT West Bengal (1955) AIR 65 (SC)
10 A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2007 SC 1546.
11 Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2004 SC 3467.
12 Aero Traders Private Limited v. Ravinder Kumar Suri, AIR 2005 SC 15.
13 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 4618.
14 Pritam Singh v. State 1992 AIR 1277

13
 MEMORIALON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

The power is permitted to be invoked not in a routine fashion but in very exceptional
circumstances as when a question of law of general public importance arises or a decision sought
to be impugned before the Supreme Court shocks the conscience.
It is submitted by the respondent that in the present case, there is no exceptional and special
circumstances exist and that if there is no interference, no substantial injustice will result. The
court would exercise its overriding powers under Art. 136 only in such exceptional cases. Special
leave will not be granted when there is no failure of justice or when substantial justice has been
done.15

1.2.1. NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW .

A petition before the Supreme Court under Article 136 can be invoked when a substantial
question of law of general public importance arises.
According to the test laid down under Sir Chunilal Mehta & Sons Ltd. v Century Spinning &
Mfg. Co. Ltd.,16 to determine whether a substantial question of law is involved is an open
question in the sense that there is no scope for interference by the HC with a finding recorded
when such finding could be treated to be a finding of fact; 17if the question has been well- settled
by the Highest Court and it is merely a question of applying the settled principles in
determination of the matter.18
In the present case, the High Court has righted allowed the order to get voice samples of the
petitioner where the Supreme Court has previously held in the case of Ritesh Sinha v State of
Uttar Pradesh & Anr., where the court has validated that the voice sample could be collected
from the accused & the same would not be violative of Art.20(3) and the question has already
been well settled by the Highest court.
Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the SLP filed by the petitioner against the order of the
High Court of Mightos is not maintainable.

15 Council of Scientific and Industrial Research v K. G. S. Bhatt (1989) AIR 1972 (SC)
16 Sir Chunilal Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. Century Spinning & Mfg. Co. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1314.
17 M. Janardhana Rao v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax AIR 2005 SC 1309.
18 15 Sir Chunilal Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. Century Spinning & Mfg. Co. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1314

14
 MEMORIALON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1.3. THE PIL FILED BY THE NEWS CHANNEL, THE SOVEREIGN IS NOT
MAINTAINABLE
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the public interest litigation filed by the
Sovereign is not maintainable before the court . A person acting bona fide and having sufficient
interest in the proceedings of the public will alone can approach the court under Article 32 to
wipe out the violation of Fundamental Rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but
not for mere apprehension or political motives or any oblique consideration.
The petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in front of the Supreme Court under Art
32 where it can be invoked only when the fundamental Right has been infringed. No question
other than relating to a Fundamental Right will be determined in a proceeding under Art. 32.
Where there is no infringement of Fundamental Right or scope for enforcement of any
Fundamental Right, the writ petition is not maintainable on the fragile ground. In this matter, no
Fundamental Right has been infringed, rather the respondents have performed their ordinary duty
under Art.19(2) and 19(3) in order to uphold the security of the state and public order.
Moreover, infringement of Fundamental Right cannot be founded on remote or speculative
grounds. There is no such action which infringes or poses a threat to the Fundamental Right of
the citizens. Mere apprehension that the officials would deprive their Fundamental Right is not
enough to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under Art. 32.
Public interest litigation , if not properly regulated and abuse averted, it becomes a tool in
unscrupulous hands to release vendetta and wreck vengeance, as well 19. In the case, petitioner
does not seek to advance any public right, rather, invocation of the jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court as public interest litigation is made keeping in background the influential enmity and
protect many anti-social elements from the eyes of law , hence, the allegations made in the
petition and in the context of the case was wholly unjustified. It is further submitted by that, this
weapon (public interest litigation) as a safeguard must be utilised and invoked by the court with a
great deal of circumspection and caution. While it is the duty of the Supreme Court to enforce
fundamental rights, it is also a duty to ensure that this weapon under Article 32 must not be
misused or permitted to be misused by creating a bottleneck in the Supreme Court preventing
other genuine violations of Fundamental Rights being considered by the court. That would be an
act or a conduct that would defeat the purpose of the preservation of the Fundamental Rights. 20
19 Ashok Kumar Pandey v. The State of West Bengal, AIR 2004 SC 280
20 Chhetriya Pradushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti v. State of Uttar Pradesh,AIR 1990 SC 2060

15
 MEMORIALON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Therefore it is concluded that there is no infringement of fundamental right nor were such
violations imminent.
Also, the PIL has been filed with a view to abuse the process in order to protect the subvert
interest of the members of the particular group who tend to disrupt public order. Hence, the
petition is not maintainable, as, this petition is just a misuse of the provisions of a public interest
litigation which is aimed at the disruption of public order, so that, the members of the dispute
who are suspected of violations are not brought under the purview of the investigation when the
same would be initiated. Hence, it is humbly pleaded that the petition is not maintainable.

1.4. ALTERNATIVE REMEDY HAS NOT BEEN EXHAUSTED

The High Court is competent enough to hear this particular case by the virtue of L.
Chandrakumar V. Union of India21. Alternative remedy is a bar unless there was complete lack
of jurisdiction in the officer or authority to take action impugned, however, the existence of a
competent body22 to hear this particular case questions the maintainability of the writ petition
filed. This Hon'ble apex court has held in Asstt. Collector of Central Excise v. Jainson Hosiery 23
where there is an alternative remedy court should not interfere unless the alternative remedy is
too dilatory or cannot grant quick relief. This court had held in the case of Jyotendrasinghi v. S.I.
Tripathi, that a party does not gain any advantage by approaching this Court directly under
Art.32 & Art.136 instead of approaching the High Court u/a 226. This is not a limitation inherent
in Art, 136, it is a limitation that this Court imposes on itself having regard to the nature of the
case. 24Thus, the respondents humbly submit that the present petition is not maintainable on the
ground that alternative remedy has not been exhausted. Thus, the respondents submit that the
present petitions are not maintainable for the aforesaid reasons.

21 L. Chandrakumar V. Union of India AIR 1997SC112594

22 A.V. Venkateshwaran v. R.S.Wadhwani AIR 1961 SC 1906
23 National Green Tribunal Act 2010 20 AIR 1979 SC 1889
24 Jyotendrasinghi v. S.I. Tripathi 1993 AIR 1991

16
 MEMORIALON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

2. Whether the detention of Mr. Wisenheimer valid under the Unlawful Activities
Prevention Act, 1967?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that, Mr . Wisenheimer’s arrest under Section
43 A of the UAPA Act, is valid . The arrest and detention had taken place because,
Mr.Wisenheimer a journalist and journalism being the fourth pillar of the state, he always has a
prime duty to produce a right news to the community or society, rather Mr.Wisenheimer had
merely acted upon the anonymous person call and sensationalised the news, which lead to the
more disturbance and violence in the society. The act of arrest of Mr. Wisenheimer has taken
place by the state as a result of Preventive Detention only and no other malafide intention.

2.1 The Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression is not violated.

It is humbly submitted that, when it is necessary to maintain and preserve freedom of speech and
expression in a democracy, so also it is necessary to place some curbs on the freedom for the
maintenance of the social order, no freedom can be absolute and completely unrestricted 25.
According to Article 19(2) the state may make a law imposing the reasonable restrictions on
exercise of the rights to freedom of speech and expression in interest of security , sovereignty of
the state26. It is humbly submitted that, even in the present case , the action of detention of Mr.
Winesheimer was to protect and safeguard the security and sovereignty of the state.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that grounds contained under Article 19(2) are
framed only to uphold the national interest or interest of society as whole. The first ground refers
to the interest and sovereignty of the Nation as whole while the second interest is to uphold the
descent, morality ,safety concerning the interest of the society as a whole. It is to be noted that,
the concept of public order is wider than the state 27 . Therefore the term public order is virtually
synonyms to public peace , safety and tranquillity 28. It is also submitted that, the term public
order involves a small riot, an affray, breaches of peace , or acts disturbing public tranquillity,
henceforth such acts which ever disturbs the peace and amicable environment of others falls
under the term where the public order shall be invoked29.

25 Ramlila Maidan v UOI (2012) 5 SCC 1.

26 N.K Bajpai v UOI (2012) 4 SCC 653.
27 Romesh Tapper v State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124.
28 OK Ghosh v Ex Joseph, AIR 1960 SC 633.
29 Madhu Limaye v SDM Monghyr, AIR 1971 SC 2486.

17
 MEMORIALON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Court that , an aggravated form of disturbance of
peace which threatens the foundation of , or threatens to overthrow the state will fall within the
scope of the phrase , “ security of the state” . Therefore the speech made to overthrow the state
shall be punishable30 and in the present case , the sensalisation of the particular news threw away
the stage, hence the arrest of Mr. Wisenheimer is totally valid.

Under article 19(2) a restriction can be imposed in the interest of the Public Order. The term
interest in Public Order gives a greater leeway to the legislature to curtail the freedom of speech
and expression for a law penalising activities having a tendency to cause may be in interest of
Public order. In the present case it is humbly submitted that, Mr. Wisenheimer has done an
activity where the public order was maintained , that is he did not deliver the right news and he
sensationalised the news. Hence the action was taken by state to detain him under the preventive
detention Act , that is UAPA.

It is humbly submitted that, according to the general theories of the criminal law, the increment
and abetment of the crime is punishable especially if the same goes against the state 31. In the
present case Mr.Wisenheimer has abated the violence in the protest place and in sensationalising
the news he had incited has caused the huge issue where it did even lead to the death of the
people , so it is submitted that the arrest of Mr.Wisenheimer is valid.

2.2 The Right to protection against Self incrimination is not violated.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that,in the present case, Mr.Wisenheimer has
not been compelled to produce or give the oral testimony in a way which he would be self
incriminated or there is no intention on behalf of the state to self incriminate Mr. Wisenheimer.
The interception of phone calls and the seeking for voice note of Mr. Wisenheimer is only to
check whether it was Mr.Wisenheimer who had conversed in the anonymous call and there was
no other intention on behalf of the state to self incriminate Mr.Wisenheimer .

30 Santosh Singh v Delhi Administration, AIR 1973 SC 1091.

31 The State Of Bihar vs Shailabala Devi, 1952 AIR 329

18
 MEMORIALON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

It is humbly submitted that,Article 20(3) would not include signature , thumb impression,
impression of palm or foot or fingers or specimens or handwriting as all these do not fall under
the aspect of the witness , although these could be of greater help in leading the case in the right
direction32. It is humbly stated that Article 20(3) is not violated when an accused is compelled to
stand up and show his face for the purpose of identification 33, in the same way in
Mr.Wisenheimer’s case , Article 20(3) would not be violated just because the interception of his
and voice note was asked for the investigation.

It is humbly submitted that, the admission of the tape recorded evidence against the accused does
not violate Article 20(3) when the conversation on his part was voluntary and there was no
compulsion then the Article 20(3) would not be violated 34. In the present case it is to be duly
noted that, Mr. Wisenheimer conversation in the anonymous call was voluntary and was not
compelled and also this call had taken place when he wasn't the accused or detained. It is also
submitted that, when the accused has talked over the phone call without any sort of duress then ,
the same wont amount any duress or compulsion 35. Hence in the present case it is humbly
submitted that there was no violation of Article 20(3) .

It is humbly submitted that , Article 20(3) is not applicable in the administrative investigations
even though the primary aim of those proceedings may be to find out whether the individual has
committed an offence or not. In case of Poolandi v Suprendient , Central Excise 36, the Supreme
court has stated that, Article 20(3) would be violated only if he is been convicted or accused for
the same offence, it cannot be violative of the fact that, the same may not be in self incriminating
in nature if statement or the evidence discovered will lead to self incrimination in future.

2.3 The Right to protection of life and personal liberty is not violated.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that, Mr .Wisenheimer’s Right to life and to live
with personal liberty is not violated, the interception of the phone call, which disturbs the public

32 State v M Krishna Mohan (2007) 14 SCC 667.

33 Prakhar Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1958 Punj 204.
34 RM Malkani v State of Maharashtra ,AIR 1960 SC 756.
35 Yusufalli v State of Maharashtra , AIR 1968 SC 147.
36 Poolandi v Superintendent , Central Excise , AIR 1992 SC 44.

19
 MEMORIALON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

order and the social security cannot be dealt as violation of right to life and personal liberty. It is
stated in the case of RM Malkani v State of Maharashtra 37 with reference to Article 21 , the
telephonic conversation of an innocent citizen would be protected by courts against wrongful or
high handed influence, but in the present case , interception of phone of the journalist who has
been key in insticationg a violence , would not come under a fact that , his mobile phone shall be
intercepted.

It is humbly submitted that , the Supreme court had reasserted the strict boundries of the personal
liberty cannot be identified , but at the same time mandates that liberty must alson accommodate
the public interest38. It is humbly presented that in the present case , that the personal liberty of
Mr. Wisenheimer has not accommodated the public interst and in contrast it has lead to violence
in the protest place , hence it is submitted that, Mr.Wisenheimer’s right to life and personal
liberty has not violated.

It is humbly submitted that, the telephone tapping is permitted in India under Section 5(2) of the
Telegraph Act ,1885 . The Court has held that this section is nconstitunally valid . On the
analysis of the same , court has concluded that the same can be done once there is a public
emergency or a public safety interest. In the present case from facts of the case , we can clearly
state that , there was a need of public safety39.

Hence , it is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that, arrest of Mr. Wisenheimer is valid
and there is been no arbitrary arrest or detention.

3.WHETHER THE FREEDOM OF PRESS UNDER ARTICLE 19 OF THE

INDIAN CONSTITUTION IS VIOLATED?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court of Complexitus that there is no
violation of Freedom of Press which is guaranteed under Article 19(1) of the Complexitus

37 RM Malkani v State of Maharashtra, ,AIR 1960 SC 756.

38 Suchita Srivatsava v Chandigarh Administartion, (2009) 9 SCC 1.

39 Hukam Chand Shayam lal v UOI , AIR 1976 SC 789.

20
 MEMORIALON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Constitution and the interception of phone calls of a journalist does not violate any other
provisions of the Constitution alongside other acts and legislations

3.1There is no violation of Freedom of Press in the present case

Freedom of Press which is mentioned under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of

Complexitus deals with freedom of Speech and expression. However, all the freedoms which are
mentioned under Article 19(1) of the Constitution are subject to restrictions under the same
provision of Article 19 of the Constitution.

The fundamental right which is mentioned under Article 19(1)(a) is subject to reasonable
restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of Complexitus. Article 19(2) of the
Constitution of Complexitus states that “Nothing in sub clause (a) of clause ( 1 ) shall affect the
operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law
imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause in the
interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with
foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation
or incitement to an offence”.

In the present case, there is no violation of freedom of press or freedom to speech and
expression because the actions of Mr. Wisenheimer have disturbed the public order of the society
and has also caused an effect on the morality and peace of the society by increasing the rate of
violence over the state. Mr. Wisenheimer has also exaggerated the death figures which have
taken place in the protest, misleading the people and suppressing the actual truth.

In the case of Om Prakash v. Emperor40, it was held that The expression ‘public order’
connotes the sense of public peace, safety and tranquillity. Anything that disturbs public peace
disturbs public order. Here the statement published by Mr. Wisenheimer has disturbed public
peace which has increased violence in the society.

In Superintendent Central Prison v. Dr Ram Manohar Lohia 41 (1960), the appeal was
regarding interpreting the word “in the interest of public order” under Article 19 of the
Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the aggravated disturbance of public order could be
40 Om Prakash v. Emperor AIR 1948 Nag, 199
41 Superintendent Central Prison v. Dr Ram Manohar Lohia 1960 SCR (2) 821

21
 MEMORIALON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

used to restrict freedom of speech and expression instead of mere ‘law and order’, and there
should be a proximate connection between the instigation and aggregate disturbance to the public
order.

In the case of Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, The Supreme Court ruled that no
crime of sedition is established under Section 124-A unless the remarks, said or written, have the
potential to cause disruption or disturbance of public order through the use of violence and also
stated that there is no offence unless the statements are likely to cause violence.

In the case of Union of India v. Assn. for Democratic Reforms 42, it was held that One-
sided information, disinformation, misinformation, and non-information, all equally create an
uninformed citizenry which makes democracy a farce.

3.2.Interception of phone calls is not violative of fundamental rights

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court that lawful interception of
phones and computers can be done by the Government at the Centre and the States under Section
5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act. Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act states that “On the
occurrence of any public emergency, or in the interest of the public safety, the Central
Government or a State Government or any officer specially authorised in this behalf by the
Central Government or a State Government may, if satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so
to do in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly
relations with foreign states or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of an
offence, for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order, direct that any message or class of
messages to or from any person or class of persons, or relating to any particular subject, brought
for transmission by or transmitted or received by any telegraph, shall not be transmitted, or shall
be intercepted or detained, or shall be disclosed to the Government making the order or an
officer thereof mentioned in the order”

In the present case, the interception of phone calls made and received by Mr.
Wisenheimer was done by the authorities concerned. It is to be noted that the calls were only
intercepted by the concerning authorities who are vested with the power to perform those
actions.

42 Union of India v. Assn. for Democratic Reforms 2002 (3) SCR 294

22
 MEMORIALON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

In R.M. Malkani v. The State of Maharashtra43, the court accepted seemingly illegally
obtained evidence for prosecution. The police officials traced the call of the accused, a coroner
accused of bribery. The charges were framed against Malkani solely based on the telephonic
statements he made. The evidence which was collected to support the side of the prosecutor was
held to be relevant under Section 7 and 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

In the case of S. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab 44, the Supreme Court permitted the
recording of an intercepted telephonic conversation between the Chief Minister’s wife and a
doctor to be submitted as evidence to corroborate the statement of witnesses who had mentioned
in their statement that such a conversation had taken place.

In the case of Toman Lal Sahu v. The State of Chhattisgarh 45, a police constable was
heard taking a favour from a hardcore criminal on the telephone. He was then discharged from
his duties without any departmental inquiry and was not given any opportunity to be heard. The
Supreme Court opined that unverified evidence cannot be admissible as electronic evidence
under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Further, the individual’s fundamental
rights, specifically the right to privacy, had been infringed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

In the case of K.L.D Nagasree v. Government of India46, it was held that: “A bare reading
of the above provision shows that for the purpose of making an order for interception of
messages in exercise of powers under Sub-Section (1) or Sub-Section (2) of Section 5 of the
Telegraph Act, 1885, the occurrence of any pubic emergency or the existence of a public safety
interest is the sine qua non.”

In the case of Aniruddha Bahal vs. State of Delhi 47, the court held that stinging on the
basis that it was necessary to achieve the ideals of freedom struggle, a valued desire enshrined in
Article 51A(b) of the Indian constitution. The High Court stated that the right to sting was, as it
were, an essential component of freedom of speech and expression, especially in the context of
the pursuit of a corruption-free society. It is a fundamental duty of an ordinary citizen under
Article 51A(b), 51A(h) & 51A(J) to expose such practices prevailing in the system and thus for

43 R.M. Malkani v. The State of Maharashtra 1973 AIR 157

44 S. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab 1964 SCR (4) 733
45 Toman Lal Sahu v. The State of Chhattisgarh (2021) 4 CGLJ 26
46 K.L.D Nagasree v. Government of India AIR 2007 AP 102
47 Aniruddha Bahal vs. State of Delhi 2010 172 DLT 269

23
 MEMORIALON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

this purpose any such act or operation conducted,with the intention of doing public good is
justified.

In the case of Sri Bhardwaj Media Pvt. Ltd. vs. State48, the court has gone beyond the
principle that the evidence is disregarded when it is obtained by influencing the person in
committing a crime and upheld the validity of the evidence obtained through sting operation
keeping in mind the importance of public interest.

3.3.There is a violation of Norms of Journalistic Conduct 2010

It is submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court of Complexitus that there is a violation
of Norms of Journalistic Conduct by the journalist Mr. Wisenheimer on his part played in the
present case.

Article 29(1) of the UDHR [Universal Declaration on Human Rights] deals with the
duties of a person to the community in which they live. The article states that ‘Everyone has
duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is
possible.’ Article 29(2) of the UDHR states that ‘In the exercise of his rights and freedoms,
everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose
of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the
just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.’
Therefore from the above mentioned articles it can be concluded that every person has a duty
which they have to fulfil for the community or the society in which they live in and every
person’s rights and freedoms can be limited to secure the recognition and respect for the rights
and freedom of other persons and the morality, public order and also the general welfare of the
democratic society.

In the rules of Norms of Journalistic Conduct the basic principles and ethics which need
to be followed by the Journalist have been mentioned which was published by the Press of India.
The basic fundamental objective of journalism is to serve the people with news, views,
comments and information on matters of public interest in a fair, accurate, unbiased, sober and
decent manner. Here in the present case, Mr. Wisenheimer has violated the basic fundamental

48 Sri Bhardwaj Media Pvt. Ltd. vs. State (W.P. (Crl.) Nos. 1125 and 1126/2007

24
 MEMORIALON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

objective which is to provide the people with accurate information and the information has to be
unbiased.

The norms which were published by the Press of India have stated that the information
published by the press and the journalist should be accurate and fair. Rule 1 of the Norms of
Journalistic conduct deals with accuracy and fairness. In rule 1 it has been specifically mentioned
that ‘Unjustified rumours and surmises should not be set forth as facts.’ Here in the present case,
Mr.Wisenheimer has highlighted the excesses committed by BPL and its proximity to several
political leaders which is good conduct. But later on, Mr.Wisenheimer has exaggerated the death
figures of the protest which is misleading in nature and is not accurate.

Rule 3 xv of the Norms of Journalistic Conduct states that ‘As a custodian of public
interest, the Press has a right to highlight cases of corruption and irregularities in public bodies
but such material should be based on irrefutable evidence and published after due inquiries and
verification from the concerned source and after obtaining the version of the person/authority
being commented upon’. Here in the present case, Mr.Wisenheimer has not only exaggerated the
death figures of the protest but also released a statement saying the State Government of Mightos
has failed on all counts and asserts that the State Government has no legal or moral right to
continue in office. Due to the statement by journalist Mr. Wisenheimer there has been increased
violence all over the state. Here the statement given or released by the Mr. Wisenheimer does not
have irrefutable evidence to support that and this being a concern of public interest, irrefutable
evidence is necessary to support the Statement. In the present case, no evidence has been
submitted by the journalist to support the statement.

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the facts presented, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the
counsel on behalf of the Petitioner humbly submit that Honourable Supreme Court of The
Republic of Complexitus be pleased to:

25
 MEMORIALON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

● . Declare that the Writ Petition filed by Mr. Weisenheimer, the Special Leave Petition
filed by Mr. Weizenheimer and the PIL filed by news channel, The Soverign are not
maintainable in the Hon’ble Court.
● The detention of Mr.Weisenheimer under UAPA,1967 is neither arbitrary nor unlawful.
● The act police and government in interception of phones of journalists & other orders
aren’t excessive use of force and is a reasonable restriction imposed on the fundmental
rights of Mr.Weisenheimer and general public.

And pass any other relief, that Honourable Supreme Court of The Republic of Complexitus may
deem fit and proper in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.

For this act of kindness, the Petitioner shall duty bound forever pray.

26