UIC: 52

1st Justice Gopalji Mehrotra

National Moot Court Competition

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF INDONIA

WRIT PETITION No. _ _ _ _ OF 2023

[UNDER Art 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF REPUBLIC OF INDONIA]

IN THE MATTER OF:

Ms. GUNJAN TRIPATHI _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _PETITIONER
VERSUS
NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL AGENCY (NDCA)_ _ _ __ _ _RESPONDENT

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANIAN JUSTICES OF THE
HIGH COURT OF REPUBLIC OF INDONIA

--MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER--

 2.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES................................................................... 3
CASES
STATUES AND BOOKS
ELECTRONIC MEDIUM
LIST OF ABBREVATIONS ................................................................... 4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ................................................................... 5

WRITTEN PLEADINGS ................................................................... 6-15

PRAYER................................................................................................................. 16

--MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER--

 3.

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES
1. Jayaswals Neco Limited v/s Union of India
2. Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu & Ors
3. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978)
4. State of West Bengal v. Ashok Dey
5. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
6. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India
7. Medical Council of India v. Sanjeev Kumar
STATUES

1. The Constitution of India

2. Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940
3. Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct,
Etiquette, and Ethics) Regulations, 2002

ELECTRONIC MEDIUM
1. www.manupatra.com
2. www.scconline.com

BOOKS

1. M.P Jain , Indian Constitutional Law , Eighth Edition, Lexis

Nexis

--MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER--

 4.

LIST OF ABBREVATIONS

Supreme Court SC
High Court HC
Doctor Dr.
Government Govt.
AIR All India Reporter
Article Art.
Others Ors.

--MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER--

 5.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner has respectfully invoked the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indonia, on the grounds of alleged violations
of fundamental rights by the Government of the Republic of Indonia.

The Petitioner acknowledges and fully respects the power and authority vested in this
esteemed court to adjudicate over the present case. The Petitioner firmly believes that
this Hon'ble High Court has both the competence and the duty to examine the matters
brought before it, particularly when concerns of fundamental rights and potential legal
in fractions are at stake. In entrusting this court with the responsibility of reviewing
the case, the Petitioner seeks a just and equitable resolution to the issues presented.

--MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER--

 6.

WRITTEN PLEADINGS

A. Whether the Writ Petition is maintainable and the High Court

of Jaipuria has the jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition
since all the abovementioned events happened within the
territory of Panchal?

Yes, the Writ Petition is maintainable, and the High Court of Jaipuria has the
jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition. While the events in question
occurred within the territory of Panchal, the High Court of Jaipuria has
jurisdiction to hear the case for several reasons:

1. Territorial Jurisdiction: In many legal systems, including India's,

territorial jurisdiction can be broader than the specific location of the
events in question. The High Court of Jaipuria may have jurisdiction over
matters that have a connection to or impact within its territorial
jurisdiction, even if some events occurred outside that jurisdiction.
A recent judgement delivered by the Delhi High Court in the case Jayaswals Neco Limited v/s
Union of India1 clears the air regarding the territorial jurisdiction of High Courts. After
analyzing the landmark judgements of the Supreme Court over this issue, the Court came up
with four hypothetical situations for determining territorial jurisdiction which is discussed
hereinunder.
• The person/authority/government to whom the writ is to be issued is in State ‘A’.
Cause of action, in whole or part, arises in State ‘A’. In such a case, State ‘A’ alone
would have jurisdiction under Article 226 (1) & (2) both.
• The person/authority/government to whom the writ is to be issued is in State ‘A’.
Cause of action, in whole or part, arises in State ‘B’. In such a case, both State
‘A’ and State ‘B’ would have jurisdiction under Article 226 (1) & (2) respectively.
• The person/authority/government to whom the writ is to be issued is in State ‘B’.
Cause of action, in whole or part, arises in State ‘A’. In such a case, both State
‘B’ and State ‘A’ would have jurisdiction under Article 226 (1) & (2) respectively.

1
. 2 July, 2007

--MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER--

 7.

• This situation is the inverse of the first situation. The person/authority/government

to whom the writ is to be issued is in State ‘B’. Cause of action, in whole or part,
arises in State ‘B’. In such a case, State ‘B’ alone would have jurisdiction under
Article 226 (1) & (2) both.

Yes, point number two does clearly imply that in the given scenario:

- The person/authority/government (the National Drug Control Agency) to

whom the writ is to be issued is in State 'A' (Jaipuria).
- The cause of action, in whole or in part, arises in State 'B' (Panchal), as it
partially began in Jaipuria.

In such a situation, both State 'A' (Jaipuria) and State 'B' (Panchal) would have
jurisdiction under Article 226(1) and (2), respectively. This means that the
High Court of Jaipuria (State 'A') has jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition
since part of the cause of action occurred within its jurisdiction, even if the
events leading to the writ petition partially took place in State 'B' (Panchal).
This is a well-established legal principle, and it allows for flexibility in
deciding the appropriate court when a cause of action spans multiple locations.

In the case of Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu & Ors2,
the principle established was that the issue of territorial jurisdiction should be
determined based on the facts presented before the court, and the veracity of
those facts is immaterial at this stage. This means that when deciding questions
of jurisdiction, the court does not assess the truth or accuracy of the facts
presented by the parties but rather considers the facts as they are presented.

This principle is significant because it allows the court to consider whether the
case falls within its territorial jurisdiction based on the information provided
by the parties, without conducting a full inquiry into the veracity of those facts
at the jurisdictional stage.

2
. 1994 (4) SCC 711

--MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER--

 8.

2. Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction: The power of the High Court to issue writs
of habeas corpus is a critical element of India's legal system. Habeas corpus is
a legal remedy that protects the fundamental right to personal liberty. It enables
the court to inquire into the legality of an individual's detention, ensuring that
individuals are not unlawfully or arbitrarily deprived of their freedom. Here,
I'll explain this concept further and provide Indian case laws that illustrate the
importance of habeas corpus jurisdiction:

Fundamental Right to Personal Liberty: The right to personal liberty is a

fundamental right guaranteed by the Indian Constitution under Article 21. It
ensures that no person can be deprived of their life or personal liberty except
in accordance with the procedure established by law.

Habeas Corpus as a Safeguard: Habeas corpus is a powerful legal tool to

protect this fundamental right. It allows an individual or a petitioner to
approach the High Court if they believe that they or someone else is being
detained unlawfully.

Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration 3: In this landmark case, the Supreme

Court of India held that habeas corpus is a guarantee against unlawful or
arbitrary detention. The court emphasized that this writ is a "bulwark against
illegal detention."

State of West Bengal v. Ashok Dey4: In this case, the Calcutta High Court
emphasized the role of habeas corpus in protecting personal liberty and
ensuring that detentions are lawful.

Preventive Detention and Habeas Corpus: Habeas corpus is particularly

crucial in cases of preventive detention, where individuals may be detained
without formal charges or trials. The High Court's power to issue this writ
serves as a check on such detention.

3
. 1980 AIR 1579, 1980 SCR (2) 557
4
. 1972 AIR 1660, 1972 SCR (2) 434

--MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER--

 9.

Timely Remedy: Habeas corpus proceedings are typically given priority by

the courts to ensure that a detained individual's rights are promptly addressed.
This remedy is vital in situations where a person's freedom is at stake.

Preventing Unlawful Detentions: Habeas corpus jurisdiction acts as a

deterrent against arbitrary and unlawful detentions by public authorities.
Knowing that the courts can intervene and examine the legality of detentions
helps uphold the rule of law.

In summary, The High Court has the authority to inquire into cases where
individuals have been detained beyond what the law allows. This includes
situations where the detention period exceeds the limits prescribed by law, or
when detention occurs without proper legal authority.

Judicial Review:
- Habeas corpus proceedings also serve as a form of judicial review. The
court examines the legality of detention to ensure that it complies with the
legal procedures and does not infringe on an individual's fundamental rights.

Protection of Individual Rights:

- The power to issue writs of habeas corpus is crucial for protecting
individual rights and liberties. It ensures that an individual's detention is in
conformity with the law and that they are not subjected to arbitrary or unlawful
detention.

2. Violation of Fundamental Rights: The protection of fundamental rights

is a cornerstone of the Indian legal system, and the High Courts have a
crucial role in addressing alleged violations of these rights. Regardless of
where the events occurred, individuals have the right to approach the High
Court to seek remedies and redress for violations.

Protection of Fundamental Rights: Fundamental rights are enshrined in

the Indian Constitution under Part III. They include rights such as the right

--MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER--

 10.

to life and personal liberty (Article 21), the right to equality (Article 14),
and the right to freedom of speech and expression (Article 19), among
others. It's the duty of the High Court to protect and enforce these rights.

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)5: This landmark case emphasized

the significance of personal liberty under Article 21. The Supreme Court held
that personal liberty is not an absolute right and can only be curtailed through
a procedure established by law. The court asserted that the law should be just,
fair, and reasonable.

K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 6: In the famous Aadhaar case, the
Supreme Court reaffirmed the right to privacy as a fundamental right that
emanates from the right to life and personal liberty. The court emphasized the
need to strike a balance between privacy and the legitimate aims of the state.

High Court Jurisdiction: The High Courts in India, including the High Court
of Jaipuria, have the power to issue writs, orders, or directions for the
enforcement of fundamental rights. This jurisdiction extends to cases where
fundamental rights have been violated, regardless of the location where the
events occurred.

In summary, the High Court's role in addressing allegations of fundamental

rights violations is a pivotal aspect of the Indian legal system. The High Courts
have the authority to intervene, regardless of the location of the events, to
protect and enforce fundamental rights as guaranteed by the Indian
Constitution. This authority ensures that individuals have access to legal
remedies when their rights are at risk or have been violated.

5
. 1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621

6 . 1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621

--MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER--

 11.

4. Public Interest: The matter involves allegations of drug distribution to

school children, which is a matter of public interest. The High Court is
responsible for ensuring the rule of law and protecting public welfare.

5. Legal Jurisdiction: The High Court is indeed an appropriate forum for

addressing issues related to the legality of detention, denial of legal
representation, and other violations of legal rights. Here are case laws that
demonstrate the High Court's role in ensuring the protection of legal rights:

In conclusion, the High Court of Jaipuria has the jurisdiction and authority to
entertain the Writ Petition. This is supported by principles of territorial
jurisdiction, the critical role of habeas corpus in safeguarding personal liberty,
the protection of fundamental rights, the significance of public interest, and
the High Court's role in addressing violations of legal rights. These factors
collectively establish the High Court's competence to adjudicate the matter,
regardless of the location where the events occurred.

B. Whether the High Court of Jaipuria has the power to adjudicate

upon the act of prescription of drugs for medicinal purposes by
Vatsal?

--MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER--

 12.

Yes, the High Court of Jaipuria has the authority to adjudicate upon the act of
prescription of drugs for medicinal purposes by Dr. Vatsal Tripathi. The
judiciary, including High Courts, has the power to review administrative
actions, including those taken by medical professionals While Protecting his
rights.

Protection of Individual Rights through Judicial Review: The High Court

of Jaipuria, as a part of the Indian judiciary, is empowered to review
administrative actions, including those related to medical practice, to ensure
they comply with the law and safeguard individual rights, including the right
to personal liberty and professional practice.

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (19787: In this landmark case, the

Supreme Court of India held that personal liberty under Article 21 of the
Constitution is of the widest amplitude and includes the right to professional
practice. The court emphasized the need for procedural fairness and the
opportunity to be heard before an adverse decision affecting personal liberty
and professional practice is made.

Medical Council of India v. Sanjeev Kumar (2010)8: In this case, the

Supreme Court of India reaffirmed the importance of protecting the rights of
medical practitioners. The court held that disciplinary proceedings against
doctors should be conducted fairly and in accordance with established
principles of natural justice.

Prescription of Drugs and Legal Oversight: The prescription of drugs by a

medical professional is an act subject to legal regulations and oversight. It must
comply with the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and other applicable laws.
The High Court has the authority to examine these actions to ensure they are
in line with legal requirements.

7
. 1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621
8
. W.P (C) 11353/2017 & C.M 46387- 88/2017

--MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER--

 13.

Protection Against Unlawful Detention: If Dr. Vatsal Tripathi's detention is

in question, the High Court, through its writ jurisdiction, can safeguard his
right to personal liberty by inquiring into the legality of the detention and
ensuring that it complies with the law.

Separation of Actions: The argument for differentiating between the actions

of Dr. Vatsal and Mr. Anirudh is based on the principles of medical practice
and legality in India. Here's an explanation with references to relevant Indian
laws and guidelines:

Medical Practice and the MCI Guidelines: In India, medical practice is

regulated by the Medical Council of India (MCI) and the respective State
Medical Councils. The MCI, under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956,
provides guidelines and standards for medical practitioners. The principles of
medical ethics and professional conduct are enshrined in the Indian Medical
Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette, and Ethics) Regulations, 2002.

Prescription for Drug Addiction: It is well-recognized in medical practice

that drug addiction is a medical condition, and its treatment may involve the
prescription of certain drugs. The practice of prescribing drugs like Xenophyl
as part of a rehabilitation program is consistent with the ethical standards of
medical practice in India.

Duty of Care to Patients: Medical practitioners in India have a duty of care

to their patients. This duty includes providing appropriate medical treatment
and support to patients suffering from drug addiction. Prescribing medications
as part of a treatment plan is a legitimate and ethical practice when done with
the patient's well-being in mind.

Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette, and Ethics)

Regulations, 2002: These regulations outline the standards of professional
conduct for medical practitioners in India. They emphasize the importance of
prioritizing the welfare of patients and ensuring that medical practice is ethical

--MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER--

 14.

and lawful. When a medical practitioner prescribes medications as part of a

treatment plan, they are expected to do so with the patient's best interests and
the ethical guidelines in mind.

Dr. Vatsal's action of prescribing Xenophyl to Mr. Anirudh as part of a

rehabilitation program for drug addiction is in accordance with established
medical practice and ethical guidelines in India. The duty of care to patients
and the legal and ethical standards governing medical practice support the
argument that Dr. Vatsal's actions were well-intentioned and within the bounds
of accepted medical procedures. This differentiation between his actions and
those of Mr. Anirudh is critical to ensure a fair and just evaluation of the case.

Compliance with Medical Ethics: Dr. Vatsal, as a senior psychiatrist and a

responsible medical professional, was acting in compliance with the ethics and
standards of his medical practice. His prescription of Xenophyl was for a
legitimate medical purpose, and he has not been involved in any illicit drug
distribution.

Lack of Connection: The alleged activities of Mr. Anirudh related to the

distribution of drugs to school children are entirely separate from Dr. Vatsal's
actions. There is no evidence or connection between Dr. Vatsal and Mr.
Anirudh's unlawful activities.

Presumption of Innocence: It is essential to uphold the principle that every

individual is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Dr. Vatsal should be given
the opportunity to defend his actions and reputation in a fair and impartial legal
process.

Medical Records and Intent: Dr. Vatsal's medical records and intentions
should be thoroughly examined to establish that he prescribed Xenophyl solely
for legitimate medical reasons. Any suspicion or allegation should be
substantiated with concrete evidence before any adverse action is taken against
him.

--MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER--

 15.

In conclusion, the High Court of Jaipuria, in adherence to established Indian

case laws and constitutional principles, has the authority to adjudicate upon
the act of prescription of drugs for medicinal purposes by Dr. Vatsal Tripathi.
This adjudication should be conducted while protecting Dr. Vatsal Tripathi's
rights, including his right to professional practice, and ensuring that all legal
processes are followed in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

In this defense, the focus is on establishing that Dr. Vatsal's actions were
within the bounds of medical ethics and law, and that he should not be held
responsible for the unrelated actions of Mr. Anirudh. The presumption of
innocence, the importance of due process, and a fair legal proceeding should
be upheld to protect Dr. Vatsal's rights and reputation.

PRAYERS

WHEREFORE, in the light of the issues raised, written pleadings and

authorities cited, it is most humbly prayed before this Hon'ble High court of
Republic of Indonia that it may be pleased

--MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER--

 16.

1. to exercise its jurisdiction and maintain the Writ Petition

2. to exercise its jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the act of prescription of
drugs for medicinal purposes by Vatsal, ensuring that the law and
ethics governing medical practice are upheld

AND/OR

3. Pass any other order, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in light of
justice, Equity and good conscience.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully sumbited

( Petitioner)
Ms. Gunjan Tripathi
----------------------
(Counsel for the Petitioner)

--MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER--