TEAM CODE:

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

IN THE MATTER OF :

SOHAN ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA ... RESPONDENT

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO._____OF _____

UNDER ART. 136 OF THE CONST. OF INDIA

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 7TH ULC-RANKA STATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS

S R. NO. CONTENTS PAGE NO.

1. ABBREVIATIONS 1
2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 2-3
3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 4
4. SUMMARY OF FACTS 5-6
5. ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION 7
6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 8-9
7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 10-19
8. PRAYER 20

1
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 7TH ULC-RANKA STATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

LIST OF ABBREVATIONS

A.I.R. All India Reporter

ALL Allahabad
Anr. Another
Art. Article
Co. Company
CriLJ Criminal Law Journal
Del. Delhi
Edn. Edition
Etc. Etcetera
Guj. Gujarat
M.P. Madhya Pradesh
Mad. Madras
Ors. Others
RTI Right to Information
S.C. Supreme Court
S.C.C. Supreme Court Cases
S.C.R. Supreme Court Reporter
S.T. Scheduled Tribes
U.P. Uttar Pradesh
UOI Union of India
V. Versus

2
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 7TH ULC-RANKA STATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
I. CONSTITUTION /STATUTES/ RULES REFERRED

1. Indian Evidence Act,1872

2. Indian Penal Code,1860
3. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,1996
4. International Covenant on Economics, Social and Cultural Rights,1966
5. Protection of Civil Rights Act,1955
6. Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993
7. Right to Information Act,2005
8. Right to Information Rules,2017
9. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment
Act,2015
10. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989
11. Universal Declaration of Human Rights,1948

II. BOOKS, DIGESTS, COMMENTARIES –

 H.M. SEERVAI, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (UNIVERSAL’S LAW PUBLISHING, NEW

DELHI, 4TH EDN., VOL. 1, 2014)
 M.P. J AIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (LEXIS NEXIS, NEW DELHI, 7THEDN.,
2015)
 RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL’S, THE INDIA PENAL C ODE, 34TH EDITION 2014.
 SHRINIVAS MADHAV, RIGHT TO INFORMATION, (ASIA LAW HOUSE, HYDERABAD)
 V.K. DEWAN, RIGHT TO INFORMATION, (INDIAN LAW PUBLICATION, NEW DELHI,
EDN., 2015)
 V.N. SHUKLA, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (EASTERN BOOK CO., NEW DELHI,
12THEDN., 2013)

III. ONLINE AUTHORITES

 lexisnexis.com
 manupatra.com
 scconline.com

IV. CASES CITED

Balaji Raghavan v. Union of India AIR 1996 SC 770

Bennette Coleman v. Union of India AIR 1973 SC 60
Bhudan Choudhary v. State of Bihar AIR 1955 SC 191
3
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
7TH ULC-RANKA STATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

British India Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Jasjit Singh,

AIR 1964 SC 1451
Additional Commissioner of Customs
Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1951 SC 118
CIT v. Maganlal Chaganlal (P) Ltd. (1997) 11 SCC 557

CIT v. Orissa Corp Ltd. AIR 1986 SC 1849

Council of Scientific and Industrial Research v. K. G. S. Bhatt (1989) 4 SCC 635.
Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT West Bengal AIR 1955 SC 65
GulshanPraksah v. State of Haryana AIR 2010 SC 288
Jalan Trading Co v. Mill Mazdoor Sabha AIR 1967 SC 691
Jyotendra sinhji v. S.I. Tripathi and Others AIR 1993 SC 1991
Kedar Nath Bajoria v. State of West Bengal AIR 1953 SC 404
M.P.V. Sundaramier& Co v. State of A.P. A.I.R 1958 SC 468
Manoranjan Roy v. State of Assam and Others (2009) 12 SCC 368
Mihir Alias Bhikari Chauhan Sahu v. State 1992 Cri LJ 488
Naga People’s Movement v. Union of India (1998) SCC 109
Namit Sharma v. Union of India (2013) 1 SCC 745.
Narpat Singh v. Jaipur Development Authority (2002) 2 SCC 666
Onkarlal Nandlal v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1986 SC 2146
Pritam Singh v. the State AIR 1950 SC 169

R.D. Shetty v. Airport authority AIR 1979 SC 1628

Re Special Court bill, 1978 AIR 1979 SC 478

Sharma Transport v. State Of A.P. AIR 2002 SC 322
State of H. P. v. Kailash Chand Mahajan AIR 1992 SC 1277

State of W.B. v. Anawar ali sarkar AIR 1952 SC 75

Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation (2014) 1 SCC 1

The Gujarat University, Ahmadabad v. Krishna Rangantah AIR 1963 SC 703
Union of India v .R. Rajeshwaram (2003) 9 SCC 294
Union of India v. Rajeshwari & Co. AIR 1986 SC 1748

4
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 7TH ULC-RANKA STATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 1361 of the
Constitution of India, 1950, to grant special leave to appeal against the impugned order of the
Session Court and Central Information Commission.

The present memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments in the present case.

1
136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to
appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by
any court or tribunal in the territory of India
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, and sentence or order passed or made by
any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.

5
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 7TH ULC-RANKA STATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Background-:
 After independence India have two aims, good governance and egalitarian society.
The Right to Information Act was passed in 2005 to bring about transparency and
accountability in governance and to eradicate corruption. The Whistle Blowers
Protection Act,2011 has received the ascent of President but the Act awaits its
enforcement.
 The glorious history of India contains some sad chapters of atrocities against the
deprived section of the society. Therefore, the Constitution of India guarantees
equality. Moreover, to prohibit derogatory practices against them, the Parliament
passed the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
1989 which was amended in 2015.

The Proposition
 Hariya belongs to the Scheduled Castes (SC) and he has to live in a slum-area away
from village due to widespread caste-based discrimination. Hariya works as a servant
in the farm house of Rama Ram. Rama Rama holds chief post in the office of Central
Public Works Department (CPWD).
 In July 2016, the Government of India announces a scheme for rehabilitating the
people belonging to SC and ST for providing them free houses. Under the scheme, the
responsibility to construct the houses is assigned to the office of CPWD.The work
didn’t start till December 2016, then people belonging to SC and ST assemble
together and go to CPWD office to know about the delay in the implantation of the
scheme. Rama Ram tells them that after inviting tender, work-order has been issued.
 However,no construction starts till July 2017. Moreover, the office of CPWD does not
pay wages to MNAREGA workers from January 2017onwards. Then some workers
approach the office to demand wages but they were told that the office is not in
receipt of funds from the central government so they are unable to pay.
 In July 2017, Hariya submits an RTI application in the office of CPWD on 05 July
2017. In the application following information is asked for:
(a)Amount of funds transferred to the office of CPWD by the Government of India for
various purposes from 1 January 2016 onwards and date of transfer.
(b)Certified photocopy of tender-notice.
(c)Certified photocopy of work-order issued
 On 10th August 2017 Hariya files an appeal in the office of CPWD under
Section19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 as he does not receive information.Next day Rama
Ram calls Hariya before the Panchayat, beats him, garlands him with foot-wears, asks
him not to enter any temple in the village and threatens him to withdraw the appeal.
At that time, four other persons belonging to Hariya’s caste are present there, but they
are unable to agitate.

6
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 7TH ULC-RANKA STATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

 Hariya files a complaint directly before the Sessions court which the court accepts and
a case is initiated against Rama Ram under Section3(1)(d),3(1)(e),3(1) (za)(c) of the
POA Act; and Section 319 of the Indian Penal Code. The defense pleads before the
court that Rama Ram does not know whether Hariya belongs to Scheduled Cates, so
in the light of Sec.8(c) of the POA act, the proceeding should not be carried under the
POA Act. The Court agrees with the plea of defense.
 On the other hand, Hariya does not withdraw the appeal and files second appeal
before the CIC on 15 September 2017, under section 19(3) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Rama Ram kidnaps Hariya and kills him and throws his dead-body outside the
village. Rama Ram raises the defense of Rule 12 of the RTI Rules,2017 which have
come in force on 15 May,2017. The rule states that on the death of appellant, the
appeal shall be deemed to have been withdrawn and CIC accepts the plea and rejects
the appeal.
 Aggrieved by the death of his father and denial of justice, Hariya’s son Sohan files a
special leave to appeal under Art.136 of the Constitution against the Government of
India to challenge the constitutionality of Sec.8(c) of the POA Act being violative of
Art.14 and 15 and Rule 12 of RTI Rules 2017, being violative of Art.19 (1) (a) and
against the objectives of the RTI Act, 2005 enshrined in its Preamble.

7
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 7TH ULC-RANKA STATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

1. WHETHER THE PRESENT SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BY SOHAN IS

MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

2. WHETHER SECTION 8(c) OF THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED

TRIBES(PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 IS CONSTITUTIONAL OR
NOT?

3. WHETHER RULE 12 OF RTI RULES, 2017 IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 19 (1)

(a), AND AGAINST THE OBJECTIVE OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005?

8
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 7TH ULC-RANKA STATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. WHETHER THE PRESENT SPECIAL LEAVE PETITON FILED BY SOHAN IS

MAINTAINABLE?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that, the Special Leave Petition
filed by the petitioner, Mr. Sohan is not maintainable, as the matter involves a substantial
question of law as it concerns Sec. 8(c) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 which is in violation of Article 14 and 15 of the
Constitution of India and Rule 12 of Right to Information Rules,2017 is in violation of
Article 19 of the Constitution of India and against the objectives of the RTI Act.2005
enshrined in its Preamble . If the Supreme Court does not intervene, it will result in gross
injustice and that miscarriage of justice has already occurred by the erring judgment of the
Session Court, which held Rama Ram innocent. Therefore, the special leave petition of
petitioner must be accepted, so that the Hon’ble Court can use its wide jurisdiction to correct
wrong done by the decision.

2. WHETHER SECTION 8(C) OF THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED

TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 IS CONSTITUTIONAL OR
NOT?

It is humbly contended by the respondent that Section8(c) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is constitutional as it was enacted for
the welfare of people belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. In the present
case Sec 8(c) was added for the upliftment of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
The objectives of this section clearly emphasize the intention of the government to deliver
justice to these communities and enabling them to live in society with dignity and self-esteem
and without fear of atrocities. Therefore Sec 8(c) has rational nexus with its parent act and it
is Constitutional.In the instant case the government made provisions for the advancement of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Sec 8(c) passed by the legislature fully
contributes in prevention of atrocities against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

3.WHETHER THE RULE 12 OF RTI RULES,2017 IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE

19(1)(A) AND AGAINST THE OBJECTIVE OF RTI ACT, 2005?

It is humbly submitted by the respondent that Rule 12 of RTI rules 2017 is not violative to
Art 19 of the Constitution of India. In the instant case government did not impose any
restrictions on right to know of the citizen. Government only excludes a dead person from
this right so far as a dead person cannot speak or express himself. The government passed
this rule in RTI Act, 2005 in keeping in view pendency of RTI applications before Public
Information Officer and Rule 12 does not put any restrictions on the rights of the citizens.
Therefore Rule 12 is constitutional and no proceedings shall be carried on this issue.

9
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 7TH ULC-RANKA STATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

ARGUMRNTS ADVANCED

1. WHETHER THE PRESENT SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED

BY SOHAN IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble SC that the Special Leave Petition filed by the
petitioner is not maintainable as Special Leave cannot be granted when substantial justice has
been done and no exceptional or special circumstances exist for the case to be maintainable. 2
Also, the present case involves no substantial question of law and inference is based on pure
question of fact which is entitled to be dismissed.

1.1 No exceptional and special circumstances exist and substantial justice

has been done
It is humbly contended by the respondent that the petitioner must show that exceptional
circumstances exist3 and if there is no interference, it will result in substantial and grave
injustice and the case has features of sufficient gravity to warrant review of the decision
appealed against, on merits. Only then the Court would exercise its overriding powers under
Art. 1364.Special leave will not be granted when there is no failure of justice or when
substantial justice is done, though the decision might suffer from some legal errors5.

In Pritam Singhv. the State6, the Supreme Court held that, the court will not grant special
leave, unless it is shown that exceptional and special circumstances exist, that substantial and
grave injustice has been done and that the case in question features of sufficient gravity to
warrant a review of the decision appealed against.In the instant case, no exceptional and
special circumstances have been shown by the petitioner and also there were no special
circumstances which could be shown by the petitioner.

It is humbly contended by the Respondent that it is not possible to define the limitations on
the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested with the SC under Art. 136. But, being an
exceptional and overriding power,7naturally it has to be exercised sparingly with caution only
in special and extraordinary situations,8 therefore the present special leave petition should be
dismissed as there exists no special situation.

2
Pritam Singh v. The State AIR 1950 SC 169
3
Supra footnote 2
4
M.P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 576 (6th ed., Lexis Nexis Butterworth Wadhwa, Nagpur 2011); See also,
The Constitution of India, 1950.
5
Council of Scientific and Industrial Research v. K. G. S. Bhatt, (1989) 4 SCC 635; See also, State of H. P. v.
Kailash Chand Mahajan, AIR 1992 SC 1277.
6
Pritam Singh v. The state AIR 1950 SC 169
7
Narpat Singh v. Jaipur Development Authority, (2002) 2 SCC 666.
8
Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT West Bengal, AIR 1955 SC 65
10
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 7TH ULC-RANKA STATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

1.2 The matter involves no substantial question of law

It is humbly contended by the Respondent that the present case does not involve any
substantial question of law rather it involves pure question of fact, hencethe present SLP is
not maintainable. In Union of India v. Rajeshwari & Co.9, the Supreme Court held that
question of fact cannot be permitted to be raised unless there is material evidence which has
been ignored by the court or the finding reached by the court is perverse.

Generally, on finding of facts, no interference should be made in SLP.10The Supreme Court

has held in Amarchand Sobhachand v. CIT11, that even in cases where conclusions are
reached without proper discussion, yet if it involves finding on fact, no interference of the SC
is called for. Similarly, in CIT v. Orissa Corp Ltd12., the Supreme Court held that if the
conclusion is based on some evidence on which subsequently a conclusion could be arrived
at, no question of law is raised.

It is humbly contended by the Respondent that the present case is totally based on finding of
facts; no substantial question of law is involved. Petitionercontented that Rama ram knew that
Hariya belongs to Scheduled Caste but it was proved by Rama Ram that he did not know
whether Hariya belongs to Scheduled Caste, therefore it is purely a question of fact; hence the
present special leave petition should be dismissed.

1.3 The Petitioner has not exhausted alternative remedies available to him
It is humbly submitted that the doctrine of exhaustion of alternative remedies guides the
practice and procedure of the SC in the exercise of its power conferred under Art. 136. As per
the principle, all the statutory remedies would have to be exhausted before approaching the
SC under its special jurisdiction, unless special circumstances can be shown to convince the
court that it must allow the appeal.13

In the case of Onkarlal Nandlal v. State of Rajasthan14, it was held that when there are other
remedies by way of appeal or revision available to the petitioner under the statute then
petitioner should exhaust those remedies first.

In Manoranjan Roy v. State of Assam and Others15, petitioner has an alternate remedy
therefore the Supreme Court reject the SLP. Similarly, inJyotendra sinhji v. Tripathi and

9
AIR 1986 SC 1748
10
CIT v. Maganlal Chaganlal (P) Ltd. (1997) 11 SCC 557.
11
AIR 1971 SC 720.
12
AIR 1986 SC 1849
13
British India Steam Navigation Co. v. Jasjit Singh, Additional Commissioner of Customs, AIR 1964 SC 1451
14
AIR 1986 SC 2146
15
(2009) 12 SCC 368
11
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 7TH ULC-RANKA STATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

Ors16, the Supreme Court held that the petitioner should exhaust other remedies available to
him before approaching to SC under article 136.17

In the instant matter, the petitioner approached this Hon’ble Court through a SLP 18 without
resorting to the appeal to the court under Art. 3219and Art. 22620 of the Constitution of India
which was available to him as an alternative remedy and the petitioner also had an option to
approach the Hon’ble high court under sec. 48221but he did not use those provided remedies.
The respondents humbly submits that keeping in view the precedents laid down by the Apex
Court the present special leave petition is not maintainable.Therefore the SLP should be
dismissed.

16
AIR 1993 SC 1991
17
Supra footnote 1
18
Moot proposition
19
Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by part III
20
Power of High Courts to issue certain writs
21
Criminal procedure code 1973
12
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 7TH ULC-RANKA STATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

2. WHETHER SECTION 8(c) OF THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND

SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989
IS CONSTITUTIONAL OR NOT?
It is humbly submitted by the respondent that Section8(c) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 198922 is constitutional as it was enacted for
the welfare of the people belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Sec 8(c)
makes a reasonable classification of people based on intelligible differentia as per Art.1423 of
the Constitution of India. A law that violates fundamental rights of a person is void24.
Additionally, unconstitutionality might arise either because the law is in respect of a matter
not within the competence of the legislature or because the matter itself being within the
competence, its provisions offend some constitutional restrictions25.

The state enjoys legislative competence in the instant case

It is humbly contended that the Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with respect to
any of the matters enumerated in list III of the seventh schedule26 of the Constitution.Under
entry 1 of list III, matter of criminal law, including all matters included in the Indian Penal
Code at the commencement of the Constitution are within the purview of the Central
Government, which enjoys a majority in the Parliament. Section 23 of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 also gives power to the central
government for making rules for caring out the purpose of this Act.

That sec 8(C), consequently, is not a colorable legislation

The doctrine of Colorable legislation is relevant only in connection with the question of
legislative competence.27Colorable legislation seeks to convey that by enacting the legislation
in question the legislature is seeking to do indirectly what is cannot do directly. 28 There is no
fraud and the Parliament of India is fully competent to enact the legislation.

22
In a prosecution for an offence, if it is proved that- (c) the accused was having personal knowledge of the
victim or his family, the court shall presume that the accused was aware of the caste or tribal identity of the
victim, unless the contrary is proved.
23
The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the law within the
territory of India.
24
Namit Sharma v. Union of India, (2013) 1 SCC 745.
25
M.P.V .Sundaramier& Co v. State of A.P, A.I.R 1958 SC 468
26
Art 246(2)
27
Jalan Trading Co v. Mill Mazdoor Sabha, AIR 1967 SC 691
28
Naga People’s Movement v.Union of India (1998) 109
13
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 7TH ULC-RANKA STATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

2.1 Is section 8(c) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 violative to Art.14 of the Constitution
of India?
It is humbly submitted before theHon’ble court that Section 8(c) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not violative of Art.14 of
theConstitution of India.

It is humbly contended by the respondent that Art.14 provides equality before law and equal
protection of law. While Art.14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable
classification for the purposes of legislation29. Administrative actions in India allegedly
affecting fundamental freedoms has always been tested on some tests. The test of reasonable
classification was laid down by the Supreme Court in Bhudan Choudhary v. State of
Bihar30,which provides that:

(1) The classification proposed in the legislation must be founded on intelligible.

......differentia

(2) There must be close nexus between the classification and the object of the Act.

Principle of intelligible differentia

Art.14 in its ambit and sweep permits reasonable classification which is founded on
intelligible differentia. The expression intelligible differentia means difference capable of
being understood and should be reasonable. The test was clearly expressed by Das, J.in State
of W.B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar31“The classification must be founded on an intelligible
differentia which distinguishes person or things that are grouped together from other left out
of the group”.

In the present case Sec 8(c)32 was added for the upliftment and advancement of the Schedule
Castes and Schedule Tribes. Before Sec 8(c) the burden of proof was on petitioner to prove
that accused was aware of the caste or tribal identity of the victim but now after adding Sec
8(c) the court shall presume that the accused was aware of the caste or tribal identity of the
victim hence the burden of proof has been shifted on accused that he was not aware of the
caste or tribal identity of the victim. Sec 8(c) is in favor of theschedule castes and schedule
tribes. Therefore Sec 8(c) is constitutional and reasonable.

29
Kedar Nath Bajoria v. State of West Bengal AIR 1953 SC 404
30
AIR 1955 SC 191
31
AIR 1952 SC 75
32
Supra footnote 22
14
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 7TH ULC-RANKA STATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

There is rational nexus between classification and objective sought

It is humbly contended that the law made and set apart a class is according to the needs and
exigencies of the society33. If the legislative policy is clear and definite and as an effective
method of carrying out that policy discretion is vested by the statue upon a body
ofadministrators or officers to make selective application of the law to certain classes or
groups of persons, the statue itself cannot be condemned as a piece of discriminatory
legislation.34

It is humbly contended by the respondent that Art.14 in its ambit and sweep permits
reasonable classification which is founded on the principle needs of the society and
differential must have a rational relation to the object to be achieved. Further, it does not
allow any kind of arbitrariness and ensure fairness and equality of treatment. In Re Special
Court bill 197835 held that it is necessary that there must be nexus between the basic of
classification and object of the act which makes the classification.

In the instant case Sec 8(c) has rational nexus with its parent Act as the main object of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was to “prevent
atrocities against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes”. The preamble of respective Act
also states that the act is “to prevent the commission of offences of atrocities against the
member of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes”. The government has the same object
behind Sec 8(c). The objective of this section clearly emphasizes the intention of the
government to deliver justice to these communities and enabling them to live in society with
dignity and self-esteem and without fear of atrocities. Therefore Sec 8(c) has rational nexus
with its parent act and it is constitutional.

Test of Arbitrariness
It is humbly contended by the respondent that arbitrariness means in an unreasonable manner,
as fixed or done founded in nature of things, non-rational, not done or acting according to
reason or judgment, depending on will alone.36 Sec 8(c) was a well thought- out
administrative action, there was no element of whim or ambiguity which would make it fall
within the purview of definition of ‘arbitrariness.

In R.D Shetty v.Airport Authority37, the SC held that for determining whether legislative or
executive action is arbitrary it is merely a judicial formula that is the classification reasonable
and does satisfy above mentioned two conditions. In the instant case Sec 8(c) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 isbased on

33
Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation (2014) 1 SCC 1 See also Mihir Alias Bhikari Chauhan Sahu v.
....State, 1992 Cri LJ 488.
34
M.P JAIN, Indian Constitutional Law ,917 (7 thed.,Lexis Nexis Butterworth Wadhwa, Nagpur,2015)
35
AIR 1979 SC 478
36
Sharma Transport v. State Of A.P AIR 2002 SC 322
37
AIR 1979 SC 1628
15
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 7TH ULC-RANKA STATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

intelligible differentia and is therefore, not arbitrary and unreasonable. It has a close nexus
with the objective of the Act and therefore it is not arbitrary or unreasonable.

Inaccordance to universal declaration of human rights, 1948

It is humbly contended by respondent that Sec 8(c) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is brought by the Government for giving effect to
rights conferred under Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 India is a part of
Universal Declaration of Human Rights which recognizes that “no one shall be subjected to
torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment”38. The government
brought Sec 8(c) to secure SCs and STs from atrocities which is in accordance to Art. 5 of
UDHR whichrecognizes “all are equal before law and are entitled without any discrimination
to equal protectionof law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in
violation of this declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination”39. Sec 8(c)
also secures equal protection of law for people who belong to Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes. Sec 8(c) is in accordance with the articles laid down in UDHR, 1948.

2.2 IS SEC 8(C) OF THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES

(PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 VIOLATIVE OF ART.15 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA?

It is humbly contended by the respondent that Sec.8(c) is not violative to Art.15. According
to Art. 15(4) State can make any special provisions for the advancement of any socially and
educationally backward classes or for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. In Union
of India v .R. Rajeshwaram40, the SC held that Art.15 (4) confers discretion and does not
create any constitutional duty or obligation.

Similarly, in Gulshan Praksah v. State of Haryana41the SC held that Art 15(4) is read as an
enabling provision under which the state may make special provisions, but the Government is
not bound to make such a provision.In the instant case government made provision for the
advancement of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. Sec 8(c)42 passed by the legislature
contributes in prevention of atrocities against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

In The Gujarat University, Ahmadabad v. Krishna Rangantah Mudholkar43SC held that

under Art.15(4) special provisions can be made only for the advancement of the backward
classes and scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. In present case Sec.8 (c) brought for the
advancement and upliftment of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes even though Art 15(4)
does not confer any obligation on state to make such provisions. Hence Sec 8(c) is
constitutional.

38
Art 5 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights
39
Art. 7 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights
40
(2003) 9 SCC 294
41
Gulshan Praksah v. State of Haryana, AIR 2010 SC 288
42
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act,1989
43
AIR 1963 SC 703
16
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 7TH ULC-RANKA STATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

3. WHETHER RULE 12 OF RTI RULES, 2017 IS VIOLATIVE OF

ARTICLE 19 (1) (a), AND AGAINST THE OBJECTIVE OF RTI ACT,
2005?
It is humbly submitted by the respondent that Rule 12 of RTI rules 2017 is not violative to
Article 19 of the Constitution of India. Art.1944 provides protection of certain rights
regarding “freedom” of speech and expression. It also provides certain restrictions which can
be imposed on exercise of this protection. In Balaji Raghavan v. Union of India45the
Supreme Court held that government can impose some reasonable restrictions on
fundamental right of Art.19 of the Constitution of India.

The expression “Freedom of Speech and Expression” in Article 19(1) (a)46 has been held to
include the Right to acquire information and disseminate the same. Right to information is
included within the definition of freedom of speech and expression as has been
recognized by the Supreme Court in, Bennette Coleman V. Union of India.47

However the freedom guaranteed under Art.19 (1) (a) is not absolute as no right can be.
Accordingly, clause 2 of Art. 19 lay down the grounds and the purposes for which a
legislature can impose ‘Reasonable Restrictions’ on the rights guaranteed underArt.19 (1)
(a). But in the instant case the Government did not impose any restrictions on right to know
of the citizen and in Chintaman Rao v.State of Madhya Pradesh48, the Supreme Court held
that if a legislative enactment does not put any restriction on fundamental right then
constitutional validity of the act cannot be challenged.Therefore the question of constitutional
validity of the rule cannot be raised in the instant case.

Right to Information Act,2005 gives a right to every citizen of India to seek information from
any department. Government only excludes a dead person from this right so far as a dead
person cannot speak or express himself. It is not a restriction on the exercise of right to know.

Language of Article 19(1) (a) is “freedom of speech and expression”. Expression means
sharing our own thoughts by anyway and understanding someone else’s thought by
anyway. It is clear from the language that it confers a right to express himself. Right to
know is also added in this right by the decision of the Supreme Court but a dead person
cannot express himself anyhow and that is whydead person does not have a right to know as
only an alive person can understand the workings of the government and he is capable to seek
any information from any government body. Therefore government brought Rule 12 in RTI
Rules in 2017.

44
Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech etc
45
AIR 1996 SC 770
46
Article 19 - Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech etc
...(1) All citizens shall have the right (a) to freedom of speech and expression;
47
AIR 1973 SC 60
48
AIR 1951 SC 118
17
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 7TH ULC-RANKA STATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

The Counsel on behalf of the respondent humbly contends that the Government does not have
any intention of denying toprovide the information. Government gives right to information to
every citizen by RTI Act,2005 even a person who is of unsound mind, minor or has other
disabilities can also ask for information from any department. Government has bona fide
intention behind drafting of Rule 12.

It is also submitted that, from the enactment of this act, when Rule 12 was not in exercise,
Government did not receive a single application from legal heirs of the applicant for the
information. Consequently result is meted out as increase in pendency before the public
information officer.

It is humbly contended by the respondent that Rule 12 is not a new rule. It is continued from
2007. In Central Information Commission (management) regulation, 2007, it is provided
that the proceeding pending before the commission shall abate on the death of appellant or
complainant.49

The government passed this rule in RTI Act keeping in view pendency of RTI applications
before Public Information Officer and Rule 12 does not put any restrictions on right of the
citizens. Therefore Rule 12 is constitutional and no proceedings shall be carried on this issue.

3.1. Is rule 12 of RTI Rules, 2017 against the objectives of the RTI Act, 2005
enshrined in its Preamble?
It is humbly contended by respondent that Rule 12 of RTI Rules, 2017 is in accordance with
the objectives enshrined in the Preamble of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The main
objective of the RTI Act,2005is toenable citizens to actively participate in governance, to
make the information available regarding government activities, about the people whom they
elect; about bureaucrats; about benefits which are conferred on citizens in various walks of
life and information about governance. Rule 12 of RTI Rules does not follow the objective of
this act. The objective of Rule 12 is to reduce the pendency, not to deny access to
information.

The preamble of RTI Act, 2005 states50:

“An Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to
secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote
transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, the Constitution of
a Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions and for matters
connected therewith or incidental thereto.

49
Sec 24 , The Central Information Commission(management)Regulations,2007
50
Right To Information Act, 2005
18
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 7TH ULC-RANKA STATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

Whereas the Constitution of India has established democratic Republic;

And whereas democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information

which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold Government and
their instrumentalities accountable to the governed;

And whereas revelation of information in actual practice is likely to conflict with other public
interests including efficient operations of the Governments, optimum use of limited fiscal
resources and the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information;

And whereas it is necessary to harmonise these conflicting interests while preserving the
paramountcy of the democratic ideal;

Now, therefore, it is expedient to provide for furnishing certain information to citizens who
desire to have it.

It is clear from the Preamble that this act was enacted to provide for legal right to information
for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to
promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority and after
the Rule 12 none from these objects are emaciated. Therefore rule 12 is in accordance with
the objects which are enshrined in the Preamble of RTI Act, 2005.

19
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 7TH ULC-RANKA STATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
most humbly prayed by the Respondent that this Hon’ble Supreme Court may be pleased to
hold that:

1. The special leave petition is not maintainable.

2. Sec. 8(c) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989is constitutional as it is not violative of Art.14 and 15 of the Constitution of
India.

3. Rule 12 of the RTI Rules, 2017 is constitutional as it is not violative of Art.19 (1) (a)
and not against the objectives of the RTI Act, 2005 enshrined in its preamble.

AND / OR

Pass any other order, direction or relief that it may deem fit in the best interest of justice,
fairness, equity and good conscience.

For This Act of Kindness, the respondent Shall Forever Pray.

Respectfully Submitted by

Counsels for the Respondent

20
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT