You are on page 1of 13

`

INTRA-MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

IN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF MEGOLIYANA


AT NEW DELHI

Writ Petition (Civil/Criminal) No. _____ / 2016


(Filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of Megoliyana, 1950)

Association for Citizens Welfare

Petitioner
Versus

Union of Megoliyan

....Respondents

Written Submissions on behalf of the Respondent,


TEAM M,
Counsel for the Respondent

Written Submission on behalf of Respondent

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................. 3


STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .................................................................................... 5
STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................... 6
QUESTIONS PRESENTED .............................................................................................. 8
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS ........................................................................................... 9
PLEADINGS ......................................................................................................................... 10
Prayer..13

2|Page

Written Submission on behalf of Respondent

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

[A] Table of Cases


S. No

Name of Case and Citation

Page No.

01

Northern Corporation v. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 764

09

02

Employees Association v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 334

09

03

Avadhesh v. State of UP, AIR 1990 AL 52, Para 18

10

04

MC Mehta v. UOI, AIR 1999 SC 2583

10

05

ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla, AIR 1976 SC 1207

10

06

Tomaso Bruno v. State of UP, Cr. L P no 142/2015.

11

07

Keshvanand Bharti v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461

11

08

R v. Halliday, 1917 AC 216

12

09

UOI v. Paul Nanickan, Appeal Criminal 21 of 2002

12

10

PUCL v. UOI, AIR 1997 SC 568

12

11

Maharashtra v. Bharat Shanti Lal, (2008) 13 SCC 5

12

[B] Treaties, Books, Reports, Statute and Digest


3|Page

Written Submission on behalf of Respondent

S. No

Name of Treaties, Books, Reports and Digest

01

The Constitution of India, V.N Shukla

02

Constitutional Law 6th Edition M.P Jain

03

Our Constitution, Shubhash C Kashyap

04

The Constitutional law D.D Basu

05

The Code Of Criminal Procedure, R.V. Kelkar

06.

Shorter Constitution, D.D Basu

07

Indian Penal Code

08

Criminal Procedure Code

09

Sarkaria Commission

10

International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights

11

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

12

Draft International Principles on Communications Surveillance and Human


Rights

13

Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy, Planning Commission (CIT&I


Division), Government of India

14

Electronic Frontier Foundation, Privacy International & Access,


International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to
Communications Surveillance,

4|Page

Written Submission on behalf of Respondent

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Respondent has approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India under Article 32(1) of
the Constitution of India, 1950.

5|Page

Written Submission on behalf of Respondent

SUMMARY OF FACTS

Megoliyana, a colony of British Empire consisting of 510 princely states. It got


freedom on 14th August 1947 and the British government freed all the princely states
with the option of independent status or to join the UOM.

Initially many of the princely states were not willing to join the union but on a
promise by the then HM to surrender only law and order, army and security to
Megoliyana.

Gradually all the princely states agreed to be the part of the Union on the condition
that only three subjects will be transferred to union government and many if the
princely states have difference on personal laws and cultural freedom.

Megoliyana has adopted parliamentary system since its independence and provided
exemption for culture and minority and to protect its identity guaranteed this as
fundamental right and the constitution of Megoliyana is the last word for any issues
relating to subject of Law and Governance.

The literacy rate of the majority of the states is very low whereas literacy rate of PanGoa was comparatively high and it had influence of western culture and the people of
Pan- Goa believe in liberty, privacy and equality.

The people of Pan-Goa are very open minded towards each other. They constitute a
liberal society based on western thoughts. Cases relating to divorce have
tremendously increased, extra marital practices are prevailing and even some of them
are living in live- relationship.

In November 2010, a new government was formed by the Megoliyan Traditional


People Party by two-third majority. The new government was very conservative and
in the name of protection of moral degradation and culture of country issued various
guidelines.

In December 2010, a guideline was issued to authorities to install CCTV cameras on


all the streets and public places including near Churches, Temples, Mosques,
Gurudwaras, garden and beaches.

This decision caused an uproar and protest across the states and the chief minister of
Pan-Goa said that the decision can be implemented at the cost of my dead body.

6|Page

Written Submission on behalf of Respondent

The union of Megoliyana made a new regulation authorizing states to monitor all the
celebration and state shall have right to get decryption password of any encrypted data
from any person across the union.

People of Pan-Goa marched against the leadership of their chief minister and broken
all the CCTV camera and uploaded an encrypted video and social networking sites
using slangs.

The union government deployed central para-military forces and ordered its central
investigation department to take necessary action and also dismiss the elected
government of Pan-Goa on the ground of failure to maintain Law and Order.

The DG central para-military forces arrested more than one individual and in flagrant
violation of criminal procedure without any court permission were confined in the
Headquarter and forced to give password to access the video.

7|Page

Written Submission on behalf of Respondent

QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1) Whether instant petition is maintainable under Article 32?
2) Whether the Union Government has responsibility to maintain law and order?
3) Whether the Union Government has violated International or legal Procedure?

8|Page

Written Submission on behalf of Respondent

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

1. In the instant petition as there is no clear breach of fundamental right hence the
petition is not maintainable as SC held in Northern Corporation v. Union of India1.
Further, guidelines according to rule 5 of regulation, which gave the power to the
Union Government to install CCTV cameras in such cities where in the opinion of
government, people are indulge in such activities as stated in the fact of the case
must be taken into consideration which enables the Union act in such furtherance.
Thus the present petition is not maintainable under Art. 32 of the Constitution of
Megoliyana as SC in case of Employees Association v. Union of India2, held that the
court cannot issue direction for making of the law or subordinate legislation.
2. It is to be submitted in the Honble Court that the Union government acted as
according to the constitutional provision and by installation of CCTV cameras acted
for maintainability of Public Tranquility which comes under Law and Order problem
and its under the domain of the Union. Further it shall be humbly submitted to the
Honble Court that the Union acted such as it has ratified CEDAW according to
which it the Governments duty to take appropriate steps to stop any discrimination
against women which means there is no such violation of International Covenant.
3. The Union government acted for unity and integrity of the nation and for its
Sovereignty in National Interest. In the instant case, government in order to maintain
law and order, deployed central paramilitary forces and ordered an investigation by
central investigation department to take necessary step, is for the maintaining of unity
and integrity of the country. It was also necessary as the CM of Pan-Goa led the
people and broken all the CCTV cameras installed in the State which was against the
principles of law as the person in power was himself insisting the violence which is
enough to rely that where was gross failure of constitutional machinery which enable
the situation of failure of law and order.

1
2

AIR 1991 SC 764


AIR 1990 SC 334

9|Page

Written Submission on behalf of Respondent

PLEADINGS

1. Whether instant petition is maintainable under Article 32?


The present petition is not maintainable because there is no violation of Fundamental Right in
the state of Pan-Goa, the Union of Megoliyana issued a guidelines according to rule 5 of
regulation, which gave the power to the Union Government to install CCTV cameras in such
cities where in the opinion of government, people are indulge in such activities as stated in
the fact of the case. The state of Pan-Goa also surrendered their law and order and security to
the Union Govt. In the instant case there is no breach of fundamental right hence the petition
is not maintainable as SC in the case of Northern Corporation v. Union of India3 held that,
there must be a clear breach of fundamental right not involving disputed question of fact as
in the instant case there is only question of disputed facts. And the involvement of the CM
makes it political matter. As held by Allahabad HC in Maharishi Avadhesh v. State of UP4
that it is non justifiable and political matters cannot be dealt with the disguise of PIL. So, the
instant petition is not maintainable.
In case of SC Employees Association v. Union of India5, the Supreme Court held that the
court cannot issue direction for making of the law or subordinate legislation. So, the Honble
court cannot interfere in this matter because the act of the interference lead to issuing
direction to legislature and making role of legislature subordinate to Court. In MC Mehta v.
UOI6, SC held that, it is not necessary for the court to strike down an order merely because
the order has been passed against the petitioner in breach of natural justice the court can
under the Article 32 or 226 can refuse to exercise such discretion.

2. Whether the Union Government has responsibility to maintain law and order?
In the instant case, Pan-Goa surrendered its Law and Order, Security and Army, hence it is
the responsibility of the Union Government to maintain law and order, the State, has no role
to question this guideline and Article 356 of the Constitution also incorporates provision to
dissolve the State Government if not working properly. In the state of Pan-Goa, law and order
is not in proper state, because of the existence of extra-marital practices which resulted in
excessive increase of divorce cases which may even lead to exploitation of women. In ADM
Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla7, the Honble SC held that, the Constitutional validity of law is
to be decided as per societal condition prevalent at relevant time the change social psyche are
important factor to be consider to upkeep law. So, the action taken by the Union Government
3
4
5
6
7

AIR 1991 SC 764


AIR 1990 AL 52, Para 18
AIR 1990 SC 334
AIR 1999 SC 2583
AIR 1976 SC 1207

10 | P a g e

Written Submission on behalf of Respondent

is as per prevalent societal condition in the nation and to upkeep and to maintain law and
order in the nation, Government installed CCTV cameras and dissolved the State
Government which comes under the jurisdiction of Union Government.
2.1 CCTV installation is for maintaining of Public Tranquillity.
The guidelines issued in December, 2010 by the Union Government to install CCTV camera,
is to maintain law and order in Pan-Goa. It will also help to prevent terrorist activities
because it has deterrence effect in society and the same was observed in Boston Marathon
bombings were suspects quickly identified after investigators picked them out on CCTV
footage8. The installation of CCTV camera in the State, provide aid to investigation agency
for the investigation of any offence as mentioned under Section 69 of IT Act and it will help
in criminal justice delivery system as stated by SC in the case of, Tomaso Bruno v. State of
UP9, that the CCTV footage is primary source of evidence and it will help to prove case
beyond reasonable doubt.
2.2 The act of Union Government is not in violation of any International Covenant.
The Government of Megoliyana ratified the CEDAW covenant and the Government has duty
to take appropriate steps to stop any discrimination against women. Art. 2(f), 3 and 5 of
CEDAW, mandates party to convention to take all necessary measure including legislation to
abolish and modify existing law and also in particular to social and cultural fields and to
modify the social and cultural pattern of conduct of men and women. The Union Govt. as
party to convention had taken steps like installation of cameras, to control the existing ill
practices against women and other harassments.
Under ICCPR, Art. 12(3) and 19(3) (b), it provides exception to liberty of individual and
freedom of expression on the ground of national security. So, the act of Union Government to
deploy central-para-military force in Pan-Gao is for the national security which is also given
in ICCPR.
3. The union government has not violated any legal procedure.
In the Preamble, unity and integrity of the country was inserted in 42nd amendment, and it is
considered as basic structure of the constitution. It is the duty of the government to maintain
law and order and sovereignty of the country. In the instant case, government in order to
maintain law and order, deployed central paramilitary forces and ordered an investigation by
central investigation department to take necessary step, is for the maintaining of unity and
integrity of the country. In Keshvanand Bharti v. State of Kerala10, the court held that, unity
and integrity is the basic structure of the Constitution and primacy should be given to national
interest.

www.bbc.com/news/magzine-22274770, accessed on 19th November, 2016 at 07:00 pm.


Cr. L P no 142/2015.
10
AIR 1973 SC 1461
9

11 | P a g e

Written Submission on behalf of Respondent

In the instant case, the CM of Pan-Goa led the people and broken all the CCTV cameras
installed in the State. If the States executive head will march with the people, then who will
control the mob and maintain law order in the State. So, the Union Governments decision for
deployment of Military-forces is necessary and also given Under schedule VII11 , List I, entry
number 2A, which incorporates deployment of armed forces of the union for any contingency
or in aid to State. Taking example of India which owes extensive diversity everyone has been
given certain liberty but this liberty is always curtailed when this diversity leads to
separation. In case of AFSPA special power is given to curb separatist demand based such
diversity.
3.1 Whether national security should be emphasized upon personal liberty.
In the instant case, the arrest made by DG Para-Military-Force, and the confiscation in the
headquarter and also the use of force, to give password of the video uploaded by people of
Pan-Gao is justified by SC in R v. Halliday12, where Lord Finlay, explained that, the purpose
of preventive detention is to safeguard national security or public order. A person is detained
not for punishment for a proven transgression of criminal law but, the individual is
considered a potential threat to state security. It is not punitive but precautionary measure. In
case of UOI v. Paul Nanickan13, the SC stated that, the object of preventive detention is not to
punish a person for having done something wrong but, to inspect him before he does it and to
protect him from doing it. No offence is proved nor any charge is formulated and justification
of such detention is suspicious or reasonable probability and not criminal conviction which
can be warranted by legal evidence. Hence, the act of Union Govt. to arrest and detention, is
to upkeep law and order, without much suffering of personal liberty and the use of force to
give password of uploaded video is for the national security, as the same was explained in
PUCL v. UOI14, where SC held that, call tapping and telephonic conversation includes
infringement of Art.21, unless it is permitted by the procedure established by law. In case of
State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shanti Lal15 the SC held that interception of wire and
electronic conversation, under the provision of MACOCA read with Art. 21 is subject to
restriction under the due procedure established by law. Right to personal liberty doesnt
include criticising and slanging the government in such a way that it can be charged under
sedation.

11
12
13
14
15

The Constitution of India, 1950.


1917 AC 216
Appeal Criminal 21 of 2002
AIR 1997 SC 568
(2008) 13 SCC 5

12 | P a g e

Written Submission on behalf of Respondent

PRAYER

In the light of issue raised, argument advanced and authorities cited it is most humbly and
respectfully submitted that this Honble Court may adjudge and declare that:
1. The Honble Court may be pleased to dismiss the present petition.
2. The CM of Pan-Goa may be punished under section 124A, read with Sections 153A, 159
The court may also be pleased to pass any other order, which this Honble Court may deem
fit in the light of justice, equity and good conscience.

Vivek Kumar
Ashwani Kumar
Anjani Kumar

13 | P a g e

You might also like