Team Code :- Q

SMT. KASHIBAI NAVALE 10th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF MAURYA.

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF MAURYA

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

IN THE MATTER OF:

(ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. …/2024

MR. RAMESH …………………………. PETITIONER I

&

AADISHAKTI …………………………… PETITIONER II

Versus

UNION OF MAURYA …………………………… RESPONDENT

A WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF MAURYA

FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE PETITIONERS

SECTION 15 OF UAPA & SECTION 113 OF THE MAURYAN NYAYA SANHITA 2023
TO BE INACORDENCE WITH PART – III OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND
PARTICULARLY THE GUARANTEE UNDER ARTICLE 14 AND 21 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF MAURYA

UPON SUBMISSION TO
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF MAURYA.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY

COUNCIL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ABOVE NAMED

Team-Q page 1 of 23 Memorial on behalf of Respondent

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. List of Abbreviations………………………………………….…………………… 1
2. Index of Authorities……………………………………………………….………. 3

I. Statues/ Legislation …………………………………….

II. Book’s ………………………………………………….

III. Judicial Precedents ……………………………………..

IV. Drafting Committee Reports ……………………………

V. International Conventions ……………………..……….

VI. Web Sources Referred……………………..…………….

3. Statement of Jurisdiction………………………………………………………… 5
4. Statement of Facts………………………………………………….…………….. 6
5. Statement of Issues ……………………………………………………………… 8
6. Statement of Arguments…………………………………………………………. 9
7. Arguments
8. Advanced ……………………………………………………………………….. 10

- 1. Whether the Petitions filed by Ramesh and Aadishakti are maintainable?

- 2. Whether the powers given to the Police Officers under Section 113 of MNS are arbitrary and violative
of the fundamental rights under the Constitution of Maurya?

8. The prayer …………………………………………………………………………… 22

2
 SMT. KASHIBAI NAVALE 10th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

LIST OF ABBREVIATION

& And
A.I.R All India Reporter
Art. Article
cl. clause
Corp. Corporation
Ed. Edition
FIR First Information Report
Fn. Foot Note No
Govt. Government of Maurya
H.C High Court
Hon’ble Honourable
ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
MNS Mauryan Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
MPC Mauryan Penal Code
Ors. Others
Pg. Page No.
¶ Paragraph Number
PIL Public Interest Litigation
Sec. Section
Sub-sec Subsection
S.C Supreme Court
S.C.C Supreme Court Cases
S.C.J Supreme Court Journal
S.C.R Supreme Court Reporter
UAPA The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,1967
U/sec Under Section
UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights
V/s Verses
Vol. Volume

Memorial on behalf of Respondent Team Code - Q

STATUTES
1. The Constitution of India, 1950.
2. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act,1967, Act No. 37 of 1967
3. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2019, Act No 28 of 2019.
4. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Act No. 45 of 2023
5. The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993
6. Indian Penal Code 1872
7. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
8. Arms Act, 1959
9. Explosive Substances Act, 1908
10. Extradition Act, 1962
11. Prevention of Seditious Meetings Act, 1911
12. Foreigners Act 1946
13. National Security Act, 1980

BOOKS

1. M.P. JAIN, Indian Constitutional Law (5th ed. 2003)

2. Fundamentals Of Indian Constitution - [Text book] by Mukesh Kumar Suman
3. Commentaries on The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (Hardcover, S. Abdul Khader Kunju)
4. Lawman’s, New Criminal Laws :- Covering (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Bill no. 121 of 2023)
5. A Critical Review on The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 by Dr. Caesar Roy
6. Text book on Criminal Producer Code 5th edition R.V. Kelkars
7. Central Law Agency's Human Rights under International Law & Indian Law by Dr. S. K. Kapoor
8. M P Jain & S N Jain’s Principles of Administrative Law

Judicial Precedents-
Supreme Court Cases
High Court Cases

Drafting Committee Reports

1. Parliamentary Standing Committee On Home Affairs - 160 - On The Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Amendment Bill, 2011
2. Parliamentary Standing Committee On Home Affairs Two Hundred Forty Sixth Report On
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
3. 177Th Law Commission Report, Law Relating To Arrest, Law Commission Of India, 106-107 (2001)

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS:
1. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966.
2. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.
4
 Sr Judicial Precedents Pg no
No.
1 Delhi Police Special Cell registers case under UAPA to probe Parliament security
breach

2 Rameshwaram Cafe blast: Case registered under UAPA and Explosive Substances
Act
3 Waheed-ur- Rehman v. Union Territory of J&K, 2022 SCC Online SC 237

4 Lt Col Prasad Shrikant Purohit vs The State of Maharashtra (2018) 11 SCC 458

5 Arup Bhuyan vs. Union of India,2 (2011) 3 SCC 377

6 State of Kerala vs. Raneef,3 (2011) 1 SCC 784

7 State of NCT of Delhi V. Raj Kumar @ LOVEPREET @LOVELY

8 Karnataka High Court in Police Station Riot Case

9 Pragya Singh Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra, ATS, Mumbai, UoI

10
State Of Tamil Nadu Through ... vs Nalini And 25 Others

11 Shafique Ahmed Mohd Salim vs Union Of India And Anr

12 Gulam Nabi Azad v Union of India & Anr

13 State vs Abdul Karim @ Tunda @ Abdul Quddus

14 Ibrahim Musa Chauhan @ Baba Chauhan vs State Of Maharashtra

15 State Of Maharashtra vs Abu Salem Abdul Kayyum Ansari & Or’s

5
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Article 32 in Constitution of India

Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part:-
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights
conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature
of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warrant and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the
enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2), Parliament may
by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction ill or any of the powers
exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).
(4) The right guaranteed by this Art 32. Shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this
Constitution.

It is humbly submitted that the petitioner has approached the Judicature of Supreme Court of Mauyra in Writ
Petition (Civil) No…/2024 titled MR. RAMESH vs UNION OF MAURYA and Writ Petition (Civil)
No. …/2024 title AADISHAKTI vs UNION OF MAURYA, two petitions have been consolidated for a
joint hearing by the court due to their similar questions of facts and law. Thus, it is pertinent to note that this
Hon’ble court has no territorial jurisdiction over the matter at hand.

6
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

Representing the Petitioner in the aforementioned case, learned council respectfully submit these facts
of the present case summarized as follows for the elucidation of this Hon’ble Supreme Court of
Maurya -

Maurya, a sovereign republic, has been grappling with a series of terrorist activities within its borders. In
response to these challenges, the country enacted 'The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967' (UAPA)
in 1967. The UAPA serves as a special law aimed at preventing terrorism and punishing terrorists. Until the
culmination of 2023, Maurya adhered to the Mauryan Penal Code (MPC) of 1860 for addressing general
offences. Acknowledging the antiquated nature of MPC, which was a vestige of the pre-independence
British era, Maurya decided to repeal it in 2023.

Consequently, the nation introduced a new penal code titled 'Mauryan Nyaya Sanhita, 2023' (MNS), which
came into effect on January 1, 2024. The MNS aimed to modernize legal provisions in alignment with
evolving societal norms and changes. On February 1, 2024, a devastating bomb blast rocked a park near the
Municipal Corporation in Taigo City, Maurya. The explosion resulted in the tragic loss of 15 lives and
inflicted severe injuries upon 35 individuals.

In the aftermath of the incident, law enforcement authorities initiated an extensive investigation, leading to
the apprehension of two suspects, Ramesh and Rekha, believed to be connected to the bombing. Ramesh
was formally charged under Section 15 of the UAPA, a provision within the anti-terrorism legislation
designed to combat terrorist activities in contrast, Rekha faced charges under Section 113 of the newly
enacted MNS. This decision to charge Rekha under MNS was made by exercising the powers vested under
Section 113 of the said penal code.

Ramesh, feeling that his apprehension under the UAPA was arbitrary and infringed upon his fundamental
rights enshrined in the Constitution of Maurya, opted to challenge the legality of his detention by filing a
Writ Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Maurya. Ramesh, seeking legal support and recognizing
the potential violations of his rights, approached Aadishakti, a prominent NGO dedicated to advocating for
prisoner rights.

7
Aadishakti, known for its activism in various legal spheres concerning prisoners' rights, including issues
such as illegal detention of under-trial prisoners and police brutality, took on Ramesh's case. Recognizing
the broader implications of Ramesh's case on the rights of under-trial prisoners and the legality of law
enforcement actions, Aadishakti filed a public interest petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
Maurya. In this petition, Aadishakti challenged the constitutional validity of the extensive powers granted to
the Superintendent of Police under Section 113 of MNS.

Both Ramesh's Writ Petition and Aadishakti's public interest petition were consolidated and listed jointly for
final hearing before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Maurya.The convergence of these petitions highlights a
critical legal challenge concerning the interpretation and application of anti-terrorism laws, as well as the
constitutionality of provisions within the newly enacted MNS.

Thus, above mentioned facts provide the backdrop for the legal challenges brought before the Supreme
Court of Maurya, where the judiciary is kindly requested to address the concerns with balancing national
security interests, individual liberties, and constitutional principles.

8
 ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE-1

1. Whether the Petitions filed by Ramesh and Aadishakti are maintainable?

ISSUE 2

2. Whether the powers given to the Police Officers under Section 113 of MNS are arbitrary and
violative of the fundamental rights under the Constitution of Maurya?

9
 SUMMERY OF ARGUMENT’S

ISSUE 1

1.. Whether the Petitions filed by Ramesh and Aadishakti are maintainable?

It is most humbly submitted that the answer to above question is an unequivocal no, it is humbly submitted
before the hon’ble supreme court that present case in not maintainable before the court. The petitioners do
not have a locus standi to appear before the hon’ble court by invoking Article 32 [1.1]. The petitioners
Ramesh and Adhishakti NGO do not satisfy all the conditions enumerated under Article 32 and their
fundamental rights are not violated enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of Maurya is not violated
[1.2]. Even the right to fair trial is granted [1.3]. Hence, the petition is not maintainable

ISSUE 2

2. Whether the powers given to the Police Officers under Section 113 of MNS are arbitrary and
violative of the fundamental rights under the Constitution of Maurya?

It is most humbly submitted that the answer to above question is an unequivocal no, powers given to the
Police Officers under Section 113 of MNS are not arbitrary and violative of the fundamental rights
enshrined in and under the Constitution of Maurya. Arrest made on reasonable ground and not infringes
fundamental rights. These provisions are granted and checked by authority to government agencies with
adequate safeguards or oversight mechanisms, they are not beyond the scope of the Constitution. These
provisions proportionately direct and gives rights with a legitimate justification, they are constitutional in
nature.

10
 ARGUMENT ADVANCE

ISSUE 1

1. Whether the Petitions filed by Ramesh and Aadishakti are maintainable?

- It is most humbly submitted that the answer to above question is an unequivocal Yes!
- The Writ Petition filed by both of the petitioners is not maintainable as: -

1.1 The petitioner Adhishakti NGO has the no sufficient locus standi.
1.2 The Fundamental Rights as guaranteed by Constitution of Maurya have not been violated.
1.3 The question raised in both of the writ petition is not involves any substantial question of law of
general importance –
1.4 Public Interest Litigation is not maintainable under national security matters
1.5 - Wide scope for floodgate for litigation

The petition filed by Ramesh challenges his apprehension under UAPA, alleging arbitrariness and
violation of fundamental rights. This Court has consistently denied any relief to an accuse who was
involved in of terrorism activities against the nation.

1.1 The petitioner Adhishakti NGO has the no sufficient locus standi.
Aadishakti's public interest petition raises a constitutional question regarding the validity of Section
113 of MNS. The petition is not maintainable as it obstructs the due process of law.
The counsel for the respondent submits before this Hon’ble Supreme Court that the writ
petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable as is no violation of Fundamental rights as
well as the issues raised in both of the writ petition involves serious threat to the due process
of law. Thus, both of the petitioners are not empowered, under Art. 32, to file a writ petition
for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
My lordship, the petitions filed by the Adhishakti, has no sufficient locus standi as it is not allowed
in the sensitive cases like terrorism governed by law in accordance with Constitution, thus no
one than a aggrieved person can file PIL it is observed in the following case;
The bench had said that in PIL matters, the doctrine of locus standi may not apply in a strict sense
but where vires of a law has been challenged, there should be some semblance of involvement.

11
 "Otherwise, it will be a proxy litigation on behalf of other persons, who do not want to come to
the forefront. That would not be permissible. We have to be careful about allowing such
proxy litigation," Justice Mithal had observed.
The public interest can be given more preference over the accused’s freedom based on the gravity
of the offence and fundamental right can be eclipsed for the interest of the society in accordance
with the circumstance

1.2 The petitioner has alternative remedy under Article 226 of the constitution of Maurya.
Council relies on the following observation recorded by Hon’ble Supreme court recently;
Advocate Prashant Bhushan1 appearing for three civil society members, including a journalist,
who were booked under the anti-terror law by Tripura Police in 2021 over their social media posts
on riots in the state, said he has received instructions from his clients to withdraw the petitions.

1.3 The question raised in both of the writ petition is not involves any substantial question of law
of general importance
In a sudden turn of events, individuals and groups who had challenged the constitutional validity of
the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in the Supreme Court withdrew
their pleas on Thursday, saying they have decided to move appropriate forums. A bench of Justices
Bela2 M Trivedi3 and Pankaj Mithal4, which had on Wednesday said it will not allow
"proxy litigation" to challenge the vires of the anti-terror law UAPA, allowed as many as eight
Petitions to be withdrawal.

"Normally, we would have not entertained such petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution.
We are not going to pass any such order.

Justice Trivedi said the Supreme Court cannot micromanage everything and they should approach
the high court for appearance through video conferencing or any other relief.

1.4 Public Interest Litigation is not maintainable under challenging constitutional validity
Similar request was made by the NGO Foundation for Media Professionals for withdrawal of a
petition challenging the constitutional validity of provisions of the UAPA with liberty to approach
the appropriate forum.
The court had said it would hear challenge to the vires of the UAPA provisions by only those who
are personally aggrieved by it and had refused to hear senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi
who appeared for some writ petitioners challenging the anti-terror law.
"The petitioner must be an aggrieved party and there must be a violation of their rights. Only then
can the question of challenging the vires of a legislative provision arise," it had said.

12
 1.5 Wide scope for floodgate for litigation
The counsel for the respondent submits before this hon’ble Supreme Court that If not to adjudicate
Aadishakti's petition and Ramesh petition, it will set a precedent for similar cases in the future. Other
organizations or individuals will approach the court against legislative provisions or governmental actions
may be overburdened with similar petitions.

13
 ISSUE 2
2. Whether the powers given to the Police Officers under Section 113 of MNS are arbitrary and
violative of the fundamental rights under the Constitution of Maurya?

[ ¶ 2.1]. It is most humbly submitted that the answer to above question is an unequivocal No! At the heart
of this case lies the delicate balance between national security imperatives and the protection of individual
liberties, two fundamental pillars of India's constitutional democracy.

Terrorist act- under UAPA and MNS law1

[ ¶ 2.2]. Whoever does any act with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security 4[,
economic security,] or sovereignty of India or with intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the
people or any section of the people in India or in any foreign country, --

(a) by using bombs, dynamite or other explosive substances or inflammable substances or firearms or
other lethal weapons or poisonous or noxious gases or other chemicals or by any other substances
(whether biological radioactive, nuclear or otherwise) of a hazardous nature or by any other means of
whatever nature to cause or likely to cause--

- (i) death of, or injuries to, any person or persons; or

- (ii) loss of, or damage to, or destruction of, property;

- (iii) disruption of any supplies or services essential to the life of the community in India or in any foreign
country; or

- iiia) damage to, the monetary stability of Maurya by way of production or smuggling or circulation of
high-quality counterfeit Indian paper currency, coin or of any other material; or]

- (iv) damage or destruction of any property in India or in a foreign country used or intended to be used for
the defense of India or in connection with any other purposes of the Government of India, any State
Government or any of their agencies; or

(b) overawes by means of criminal force or the show of criminal force or attempts to do so or causes
death of any public functionary or attempts to cause death of any public functionary; or

(c) detains, kidnaps or abducts any person and threatens to kill or injure such person or does any other act
in order to compel the Government of India, any State Government or the Government of a foreign
country or 5[an international or inter-governmental organization or any other person to do or abstain from
doing any act; or]

-This act was drafted in presence of the National Integration Council and the main agenda of this act was
to control communalism, casteism and regionalism but not terrorism at that time.1

1. Terrorist act- under UAPA and MNS law2. New penal code bill widens scope of ‘terrorist act’

14
- But after the parliament attack of 2001, terrorist train attack of 2004 and 2008 Taj hotel attack and many
more. After those amendments were made in the act like in year 2004,2008, 2013 and recently in 2019
and this act was made as the India’s main anti-terror law. Preceding this upgrading of UAPA,
psychological oppressor exercises were essentially managed under the now cancelled Terrorist and
Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (‘TADA’) and Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (‘POTA’).
Throughout the long term, various difficulties have been made to the protected legitimacy of both TADA
and POTA.

New penal code bill widens scope of ‘terrorist act’2

[ ¶ 2.3]. The definition of terrorism in the new Maurya Nyaya (second) Sanhita Bill now includes “economic
security” and acts of terror in foreign countries, among other changes.

“Whoever does any act with the intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, sovereignty,
security, or economic security of India or with the intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the people
or any section of the people in India or in any foreign country…,” it reads.

Besides causing explosions, the use of biological, radioactive, nuclear or otherwise hazardous nature or by
any other means of whatever nature to cause or likely to cause death and injury, among other damage or
destruction will be considered as an act of terror, the new bill says.

“Any “damage or destruction of any property in India or in a foreign country used or intended to be used for
the defence of India or in connection with any other purposes of the Government of India, any state
government or any of their agencies” will also be construed as a terrorist act.

According to section 113 of the reintroduced Mourya Nyaya Sanhita Bill, the penalty for such activities can
be capital punishment or life imprisonment. The fresh inclusions will be useful for Indian security agencies
to bring to book under general law the terrorists are targeting Indian diplomatic establishments from abroad.
The agencies are dependent on special laws like the UAPA for such actions.

The bill also states, "Overawes by means of criminal force or show of criminal force or attempts to do so or
causes the death of any public functionary or attempts to cause the death of any public functionary…
kidnapping or does any other act in order to compel the Government of India, any state government or the
government of a foreign country commit a terrorist act.” These definitions were earlier part of the UAPA
passed in 2013.

Damage to the monetary stability of Maurya by way of production or smuggling or circulation of counterfeit
Indian paper currency, coin or of any other material” will be considered terrorist acts.

. (1) A person is said to have committed a terrorist act if he commits any act in Maurya
or in any foreign country with the intention to threaten the unity, integrity and security of
India, to intimidate the general public or a segment thereof, or to disturb public order by
doing an act,
(viii) using bombs, dynamite or any other explosive substance or inflammable
material or firearms or other lethal weapons or poison or noxious gases or other chemicals
or any other substance (whether biological or otherwise) hazardous in nature in such
a manner so as to create an atmosphere or spread a message of fear, to cause death or
serious bodily harm to any person, or endangers a person’s life;
(ii) to cause damage or loss due to damage or destruction of property or disruption
15
of any supplies or services essential to the life of the community, destruction of a
Government or public facility, public place or private property;
(iii)Disruption of any supplies or services essential to the life of the community in Maurya or in any foreign
country; or damage to, the monetary stability of India by way of production or smuggling or circulation of
counterfeit Indian paper currency, coin or of any other material” will be seen as an act of terrorism as per the
newly introduced bill.

To cause extensive interference with, damage or destruction to critical infrastructure;

(iv) to provoke or influence by intimidation the Government or its organization,
in such a manner so as to cause or likely to cause death or injury to any public
functionary or any person or an act of detaining any person and threatening to kill or
injure such person in order to compel the Government to do or abstain from doing any
act, or destabilize or destroy the political, economic, or social structures of the country,
or create a public emergency or undermine public safety;
(v) included within the scope of any of the Treaties listed in the Second Schedule
to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

(2) Whoever, attempts to commit or commits an offence of terrorist act shall, ––

(i) if such offence has resulted in the death of any person, be punishable with
death or imprisonment for life without the benefit of parole, and shall also be liable to
fine which shall not be less than rupees ten lakhs;
(ii) in any other case, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not
be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be
liable to fine which shall not be less than rupees five lakhs.

(3) Whoever, conspires, organizes or causes to be organized any organization,

association or a group of persons for terrorist acts, or assists, facilitates or otherwise conspires
to engage in any act preparatory to any terrorist act, shall be punishable with imprisonment
for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for
life, and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than rupees five lakhs.

(4) Any person, who is a member of terrorist organization, which is involved in terrorist
act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to imprisonment for
life, and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than rupees five lakhs.

(5) Whoever, intentionally harbors or conceals or attempts to harbor or conceal any

person who has committed an offence of any terrorist act shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than rupees five

16
lakh:
Provided that this sub-section shall not apply to any case in which the harbor or concealment is by the
spouse of the offender.

(6) Whoever, holds any property directly or indirectly, derived or obtained from
commission of terrorist act or proceeds of terrorism, or acquired through the terrorist fund, or
possesses, provides, collects or uses property or funds or makes available property, funds
or financial service or other related services, by any means, to be used, in full or in part to

carry out or facilitate the commission of any terrorist act, shall be2 punishable with imprisonment
for a term which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine which shall
not be less than rupees five lakhs and such property shall also be liable for attachment and
forfeiture.

[ ¶ 2.4]. The revised bill says that an officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police can decide whether to
register a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967.

Police officer’s power to investigate cognizable case. As the SP is in overall charge of the district, the
Committee is of the opinion that investigation should be done by officer’s subordinate to him, provision
should also be made in the Maurya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2024 to the effect that before registering a
criminal case/ FIR under this clause, there has to be an approval by a senior police officer to decide whether
the FIR be register under UAPA or under the MNS.

[ ¶ 2.5]. network of laws that require scrutinization at every aspect, UAPA’s

However, the new definition differs from the UAPA’s definition in one respect, UAPA includes the
production or smuggling or circulation only of high-quality counterfeit Indian paper currency, coin, or any
other material within the ambit of terrorism, whereas the revised Bill widens this definition to cover the
same activities concerning any counterfeit Indian paper currency, coin or any other material

The Committee in which eminent jurist, senior lawyers, researches, thinkers, also recommends that a
provision should also be made in the Maurya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2024 to the effect that before
registering a criminal case/ FIR under this clause, there has to be an approval by a senior police officer to
decide whether the FIR be registered under UAPA or under the MNS. Introduce the offence of ‘terrorist act’
in the general Law. Now, ordinary specified crimes may be considered ‘terrorist act’ if committed with
particular intent and mode. Presently, the offences relating to terrorism are dealt in the special law
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). Earlier such offences were
dealt under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA)
and Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (POTA). There was a pressing need for a

17
specific provision relating to a terrorist act within the penal code and hence, section 113 in MNS is a
welcome introduction.
The offence of recruiting and training persons to engage in terrorist acts has been introduced, mirroring
sections 18A and 18B of the UAPA.

Terrorism and international criminal law1

[ ¶ 2.6]. Over the course of four decades, the international community, under the auspices of the United
Nations, has developed 13 conventions relating to the prevention and suppression of terrorism. These so-
called sectoral instruments, which address issues ranging from the unlawful seizure of aircraft and the taking
of hostages to the suppression of terrorist bombings, contribute to the global legal regime against terrorism
and provide a framework for international cooperation. They require States to take specific measures to
prevent the commission of terrorist acts and prohibit terrorist-related offences, including by obliging States
parties to criminalize specific conduct, establish certain jurisdictional criteria (including the well-known
principle of aut dedere aut judicare or “extradite or prosecute”), and provide a legal basis for cooperation on
extradition and legal assistance.

Most of these treaties relating to specific aspects of terrorism define specified acts as offences and require
States to criminalize them. They cover offences linked to the financing of terrorism, offences based on the
victim’s status (such as hostage-taking and crimes against internationally protected persons), offences linked
to civil aviation, offences linked to ships and fixed platforms, and offences linked to dangerous materials.
According to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, for example,
terrorism includes any “act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other
person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such
act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international
organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.”

It requires the penalization of specific offences related to the financing of terrorism thus defined. The
Security Council has recognized the ratification and effective implementation of the universal anti-terrorism
instruments as a top priority. On 28 September 2001, acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United
Nations, it adopted resolution 1373 (2001), stating explicitly that every act of terrorism constitutes a “threat
to international peace and security” and that the “acts, methods, and practices of terrorism are contrary to the
purposes and principles of the United Nations.” The resolution also requires all States to criminalize terrorist
acts; to penalize acts of support for or in preparation of terrorist offences; to criminalize the financing of
terrorism; to depoliticize terrorist offences; to freeze funds of persons who commit or attempt to commit
terrorist acts; and to strengthen international cooperation in criminal matters.
3

Constitutional Validity of the NIA Act.2

[ ¶ 2.7]. The Constitutional validity of the NIA Act has been challenged before the Bombay High Court in
Pragya Singh Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra, ATS, Mumbai, UoI
NIA contending that the Parliament lacks competency to constitute an agency for the investigation of
offences as the policing stands in the State List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The Court
rejected the contention by noting the entries in List-I and in List-III and by reading them together and

1. Terrorism and international criminal law

2. Constitutional Validity of the NIA Act.

18
harmoniously came to the conclusion that the Parliament is competent to enact the NIA Act. The Court has
considered that when the parliament is competent to enact the law for the subjects numerated in the schedule
to the NIA Act. It is equally competent to create an agency for the investigation of the offences specified in
it.
Another aspect considered by the Court was the Entry 8 of List I (Union List) entitled as "Central Bureau of
Intelligence and Investigation”. It was observed that if such Central Bureau of Intelligence and Investigation
could be setup by the Parliament, then, the powers could not be restricted when it decides to enact a
legislation so as to constitute an Investigating Agency at the national level to investigate and prosecute
offences affecting the sovereignty, security and integrity of India, security of State, friendly relations with
foreign States, etc. In addition to this, the Court held that even if it is assumed that the State has power to
make a law in relation to Police, still going by the wide wording of Entry-1 and Entry-2 of List-III, the
Concurrent List, it is clear that the Parliament is competent to enact the NIA Act, 2008.

- Investigation via way of means of NIA: Under the Act, research of instances can be performed via way of
means of officials of the rank of Deputy Superintendent or Assistant Commissioner of Police or above.
The Bill moreover empowers the officials of the NIA, of the rank of Inspector or above, to research
instances.

- Insertion to agenda of treaties: The Act defines terrorist acts to encompass acts devoted inside the scope
of any of the treaties indexed in an agenda to the Act. The Schedule lists 9 treaties, consisting of the
- Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings (1997), and the
Convention in opposition to Taking of Hostages (1979). The Bill provides every other treaty to the list.
- International Convention for Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism (2005).

POWER Of POLICE, NATIONAL INVISTAGATING AGENCY AND DIRECTOR GENERAL OF

POLICE UNDER UAPA AMENDMENT BILL 2019

[ ¶ 2.8]. The Amendment apportions or issue forces to DG, NIA to connect properties obtained from
procedures of illegal intimidation. On this issue, Shri Shah said that this law doesn’t remove forces of the
state police. At the point when NIA takes up a case having worldwide and between state repercussions,
the real factors as to pertinency to the case are with the NIA, and not with the state police. Presently, it is
needed in the law that NIA take earlier authorization from the particular state DGP to append the returns
of psychological warfare. This postpones the interaction as frequently such properties are in various
states.
- Prior, officials of positions DSP i.e., Director General Police or more rankers were engaged to explore
cases which fall under UAPA according to Section 43. The Amendment tries to allow forces to officials
with the position of reviewers or more to do likewise. Priest Believes that this would facilitate the
circumstance assist with tackling the human asset mash in the NIA. The investigator ranks officials have,
over the long haul, procured adequate capability to research UAPA related cases. Another factor is that
this is accepted to animate the conveyance of equity in UAPA related cases, which are explored by senior
officials at different levels.

19
 Delhi Police Special Cell registers case under UAPA to probe Parliament security breach1

New Delhi: The Delhi Police has registered a case under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
Act in connection with the Parliament security breach, officials said on Thursday. The case was registered
under UAPA sections 16 (punishment for terrorist act) and 18 (punishment for conspiracy, etc.) and IPC
sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 452 (trespass), 153 (wantonly giving provocation, with intent to
cause riot), 186 (obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions) and 35 ..

Rameshwaram Cafe blast: Case registered under UAPA and Explosive Substances Act2

Bengaluru Police have registered a case under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and
Explosive Substances Act in connection with the explosion at the city’s popular eatery Rameshwaram
Cafe on Friday, officials said. A statement issued by the city Police Commissioner’s office said 10 people
In this regard, a case has been registered at HAL police station under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
Act 1967 and the Explosive Substances Act.

Grounds on which bail must be denied

[ ¶ 2.9]. Under the UAPA. Instead, Section 43D (5) of UAPA merely provides another possible ground
for the competent Court to refuse bail, in addition to the well settled considerations like gravity of the
offence, possibility of tampering with evidence, influencing the witnesses or chance of the accused
evading the trial by absconsion, or the there are chances of the assassination of the accuse, which may
ultimately protect the real minds behind the conspiracy, this can ultimately create significant concern to
the life of the accused as well as adversely affect the proceeding before this hon’ble court.

Waheed-ur- Rehman v. Union Territory of J&K, 2022 SCC Online SC 2373

The court was of the view that the provisions of Section 173(6) of the Cr.P.C. read with Section 44 of the
UAPA and Section 17 of the NIA Act stand on a different plane with different legal implications as 4
compared to Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. The objective of Section 44, UAPA, Section 17, NIA Act, and
Section 173(6) is to safeguard witnesses. They are in the nature of statutory witness protection. On the court
being satisfied that the disclosure of the address and name of the witness could endanger the family and the
witness, such an order can be passed.

Lt Col Prasad Shrikant Purohit vs The State of Maharashtra (2018) 11 SCC 4584

The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course

• Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the
merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie
concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a
serious offence

• Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind

4
1. Pragya Singh Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra, ATS, Mumbai, UoI
2. Delhi Police Special Cell registers case under UAPA to probe Parliament security breach
2. Rameshwaram Cafe blast: Case registered under UAPA and Explosive Substances Act
3. Waheed-ur- Rehman v. Union Territory of J&K, 2022 SCC Online SC 237
4. Lt Col Prasad Shrikant Purohit vs The State of Maharashtra (2018) 11 SCC 458

20
• It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider, among other circumstances, the following factors
also before granting bail; they are:
➢ The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of
supporting evidence
➢ Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant
➢ Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge
• At the stage of granting bail, a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits
of the case has not to be undertaken
• The grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion of the court
• The grant or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case
• But at the same time, right to bail is not to be denied merely because of the sentiments of the community
against the accused

[ ¶ 2.10 ] NO VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

The Maurya jurisprudence is based on the strong legal presumption of innocence and hails the idea of
freedom and liberty. But the same can be compromised in extraordinary circumstances where these rights
granted under the constitution of Maurya can be put to hold if it hampers the national security of the state

The fundamental rights mentioned under Article 21 and 14 falls with the purview of the reasonable
restrictions and so it can be subjected to restrictions when there is a threat to the national security of the
state.

It is humbly pleaded that ‘procedure’ means the manner and form of enforcing the law. The procedure that is
being followed must be just, fair and reasonable. In the instant case, the acts of police and charge framed by
the lower courts clearly falls within the purview of ‘due procedure established by law’ under Art. 21 by
following all the laws and the manner of enforcing the law is fully justified in the instant case. Thus, since in
the instant case the procedure is established by law, so there is no proximity of violation of Art. 21

Undertaking such inhuman act which raises significant consent regarding the national security ultimately
puts the position accuse to be harmful for the serenity and integrity of the country, in such instance right to
equality will not be granted.

Hon’ble Supreme Court Observation on UAP Act1

Arup Bhuyan vs. Union of India,2 (2011) 3 SCC 377 as well as

State of Kerala vs. Raneef,3 (2011) 1 SCC 784, pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated
26.08.2014, reported as (2015) 12 SCC 702.

2 Mere membership of a banned association is sufficient to constitute an offence under UAPA; Supreme
Court upholds the Constitutional validity of S. 10(a)(i) UAPA Supreme Court’s full bench declared the
judgments in Arup Bhuyan, Indra Das and Raneef to be bad in law. Also, the High Courts Judgments
which followed these precedents were overruled...

21
- Presumption of innocence until proven guilty is not applicable in the UAPA
- Mens Rea is enough reason without the evidence a person can be charged under the Act

UAPA Terrorism Cases Not to Be Taken Lightly: Supreme Court Sets Aside Default bail provision

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI VERSUS RAJ KUMAR @ LOVEPREET @LOVELY4

In a case pertaining to grant of default bail to a person accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
Act, 1967 (“UAPA”), the Supreme Court allowed an appeal filed by the Delhi police, observing that the
High Court fell in error in granting default bail and should not have taken the matter so lightly. A Division
Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh...
Karnataka High Court in Police Station Riot Case5

Invoking S.15 UAPA For Acts ‘Likely to Strike Terror’ Even in Absence Of Intention Justifiable: Karnataka
High Court In Police Station Riot Case.The Karnataka High Court has said that if an act is likely to strike
terror, then the absence of an intent to strike terror will not make the invocation of Section 15 of the5
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act unjustifiable. A division bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice6
Pradeep Singh Yerur said, “It would emerge from sub-section (1) of Section 15 that even if the act is “likely
t be called as unlawful.’’7

Delhi Court Sentences Lashkar Man To 7 Years in Jail6

Country Relentlessly Facing Violence Due to Terror Activities, Cause of Concern for Entire Humanity”:
Delhi Court Sentences Lashkar Man To 7 Years in Jail

Observing that the Country was Maurya easily facing violence due to terror activities, a Delhi Court has
recently sentenced a 23-year-old Lashkar e Taiba trained militant to seven years of rigorous imprisonment

convicted for infiltrating into India with a motive to destabilize the country and to cause terrorist activities.
Noting that awarding a sentencing is a tough call to make,

Panjab & Hariyana High Court Refuses to Quash NIA Case7

International Drug Racket- “Serious Allegations of Attempt to Revive Terrorism in Punjab”: P&H High
Court Refuses to Quash NIA Case

The Punjab & Haryana High Court recently refused to quash an NIA Case against Jasmeet Singh
Hakimzada, who is allegedly a Dubai-based international drug smuggler, by taking into account the

5
6
1. Hon’ble Supreme Court Observation on UAP Act1
2. Arup Bhuyan vs. Union of India,2 (2011) 3 SCC 377 as well as
3. State of Kerala vs. Raneef,3 (2011) 1 SCC 784, pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated
26.08.2014, reported as (2015) 12 SCC 702.
4. State of Kerala vs. Raneef,
5. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI VERSUS RAJ KUMAR @ LOVEPREET @LOVELY4
6.
Karnataka High Court in Police Station Riot Case5

22
allegations against him of reviving terrorism in the state of Punjab and his alleged involvement in the
smuggling of heroin and psychotropic substances around the world. The Bench of Justice Tejinder...

Indira Gandhi former prime minister’s assassination by Khalistani terrorists

After the Army operation against Bhindranwale and the Khalistani terrorists in the Golden Temple, it was
apprehended in the intelligence community that the Sikhs — even some not associated with the Khalistan
movement — would attempt a reprisal attack on her for the damage suffered by the Akal Takht and for the
death of Bhindranwale.

Rajiv Gandhi former prime minister’s assassination by LTTE

Rajiv The Commission report stated that the year 1989 signified "the perpetuation of the general political
trend of indulging the Tamil militants on Indian soil and tolerance of their wide-ranging criminal and anti-
national activities". The report also alleged that LTTE leaders in Jaffna were in possession of sensitive
coded messages exchanged between the Union government and the state government. "There is evidence to
show that, during this period, some of the most vital wireless messages were passed between the LTTE
operatives based in Tamil Nadu and Jaffna. These messages, which were decoded later, are directly related
to the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi", the report stated. The Congress subsequently brought down the United
Front (UF) government of I K Gujral after the report was leaked in November 1998.

Mumbai 93 attack by Dawood Ibrahim with the help of Pakistan

The 1993 Bombay bombings was a series of 12[3][4][5] terrorist bombings that took place
in Bombay (now Mumbai), Maharashtra, on 12 March 1993.[6] The single-day attacks resulted in 257
fatalities and 1,400 injuries.[1][2][7][8][9] The attacks were coordinated by Dawood Ibrahim,[10] leader of the
Mumbai-based international organised crime syndicate D-Company.[11] Ibrahim was believed to have
ordered and helped organize the bombings through his subordinates Tiger Memon and Yakub Memon.
Yakub Abdul Razzaq Memon (30 July 1962 – 30 July 2015) was an Indian terrorist financier convicted of
terrorism over his financial involvements in the 1993 Bombay bombings,[4][5][6][7] and the brother of one of
the prime suspects in the bombings,

Mumbai 26/11 attack Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT)

The Mumbai terror attack was executed by the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), a terrorist group based in Pakistan.
The LeT was founded in 1987 with the express aim of helping the Mujahideen in Afghanistan and liberating
Kashmir from India.

Pulwama attack by Jaish-e-Mohammed

More than 40 solders got killed in the terror attack in state of Kashmir
Pakistan-based militant group Jaish-e-Mohammed claimed responsibility for the attack. They also released a
video of the assailant Adil Ahmad Dar, 22, from Kakapora who had joined the group a year earlier.

Sleeper sells (passive terrorist group)

A group terrorists who is not currently active but assumes a guise in order to be in position,
unsuspected, for future terrorist activities.
23
Closing Statement

Terrorism is unquestionably a global threat, and terrorist organizations continue to target India even today.
As a result, the need for anti-terrorism legislation was recognized, and different laws were implemented. The
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 is one of the foremost laws in India which was originally
enacted to impose reasonable restrictions on associations that proved to be involved in such activities which
are declared by the legislation. The Union has not yet submitted a response to the current legal challenge to
the 2019 Amendment Act, so it is only in the preliminary stages. The situation is slated to serve as an
excellent proving ground for the scope of the government’s discretion in anti-terror laws. Nevertheless,
considering the nature of the challenge and previous critiques of the legislation is fair.

Through the investigation by police of the blast in the park near Municipal Corporation in Taigo City
in Maurya, where 15 people killed and 35 are severely injured, police has got some prima facia
evidence against the accused, and strong suspension is that some banned terrorist group is involved in
it, and in future they have some other conspiracy to execute in Maurya state.
Respondent request the hon’ble court not to give any relief at this time else it will affect the further
investigation process.

24
 PRAYER

In the light of the above statements, facts presented, issues raised, authorities relied upon and
arguments advanced, it is most humbly prayed that:

1. That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss both the petitions under Article 32 of the
Constitution of Maurya.

2. That the amendment to the section 113 in Mauryan Nyaya Sanhita 2023 vide the scope of
the terrorism and not violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution on Maurya.

3. That the excess power given to the Superintendent of police is not violative to the quasi-
federal nature of the Maurya enshrine under the Constitution of Maurya.
4.

AND

To pass any other order that this Hon’ble Court may been fit in the Interest of Justice, Equity and
good conscience, for which this appellant shall be duty bound forever pray.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted

Sd/-

(Humbly submitted by the counsel

appearing on behalf of the respondent)

25