[BLBH]-415-MOOT COURT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………………………...1

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………………………..2

STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………………………………….5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………………………………..7

ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION …………………………………………………………...8

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS……………………………………………………………...9

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS…………………………………………………………………11

I. THAT THE HON’BLE HC OF VARAMASI HAS JURISDICTION TO DECIDE

THE PRESENT PIL AND WRIT PETITION FILED BY AN NGO SAHYOG.

II. THAT THE ACTIONS OF THE POLICE PERSONNEL HAS VITIATED THE
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MADAN, CAUSING HIM PREJUDICE AND
DEPRIVING HIM OF HIS FUNDAMENTAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

III. THAT THE STATE OF VARAMASI HAS VIOLATED ART. 14, ART. 21 & ART.
20(1) OF THE ARYAVARTA CONSTITUTION WHEN IT FAILED TO ENSURE
MADAN, RIGHT TO HUMAN TREATMENT FREE FROM TORTURE.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF………...………………....…………………………………………20

-Memorandum for the Petitioner- Page 1

 [BLBH]-415-MOOT COURT

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES REFERRED

- Ali Mustafa Abdul Rahman Moosa vs State Of Kerala, 1995 AIR 244
- Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802,

- Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das, AIR 2000 SC 988 at 997.

- D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 610.
- Francis Corali Mullin v Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 746.
- Gopal & Ors vs. State, Criminal Misc (Pet.) No. 3073 / 2014.
- Inder Mohan Goswami & Another vs State Of Uttaranchal & Others, AIR 2008 SC
251
- Indian Banks' Association, Bombay & Ors, v. Devkala Consultancy Service and Ors.
AIR 2004 SC 2615

- Jolly George Varghese v Bank of Cochin, AIR 1980 SC 470.

- K. Raghupathy v The Commissioner of Police, Crl.O.P. SR.No. 28352 of 2017.

- Karnail Singh vs State Of Haryana, criminal appeal no. 606 of 2004

- Kharak Singh v. State o f UP, AIR 1963 SC 1295.
- Kumari Lovely Singh & Another vs. Adheekshika Rajkiya Balgrih & 4 Others,
habeas corpus W.P. No. - 28330 of 2016
- Maharaj Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1976 SC 2602

- Maneka Gandh vs. Union of India , AIR 1978 SC 597.

- Mohan Lal Sharma v State of Uttar Pradesh, (1989) 2 SCC 314
- Prabhakar Pandurang v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1966 SC 424.
- PUDR v. Union of India, 2015 CriLJ 4141

- Roy V.D. vs State of kerala, 2001 (1) K.L.T. 86 (S.C).

- S. P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149

- Smt. Nilabati Behera vs State Of Orissa And Ors, 1993 AIR 1960.
- State o f Andhra Pradesh v. Challa Ramkrishna Reddy, AIR 2000 SC 2083.
- State of Punjab Vs. Balbir Singh, (1994) 3 SCC 299

-Memorandum for the Petitioner- Page 2

 [BLBH]-415-MOOT COURT

- State of Punjab Vs. Baldev Singh, (1999) 6Scc 172

- State Of Rajasthan vs Jag Raj Singh @ Hansa, criminal appeal no.1233 of 2006.
- Vishaka v State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011

STATUTES REFERRED

- The Constitution of India, 1950.

- The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
- The Indian Penal Code, 1860.
- The Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

INTERNATIONAL TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS REFERRED

- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948

- International Covenant of Economic, social and cultural rights 1966
- UN Human Rights Committee on Civil and Political Rights, 1992

JOURNALS REFERRED

- All India Reporters

- Crimes
- Criminal Law Journal
- Supreme Court Cases

BOOKS REFERRED

- Basu D.D., Commentary of the Constitution of India, (8th ed., 2011), Vol.1. & Vol.2.
- C. K. Takwani & M.C. Takwani, Criminal Procedure (3rd Ed., Lexis Nexis
Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur, 2011)
- Datar A.P., Datar on Constitution of India, (1st ed., 2001), Wadhwa and Co.
- Dr. K.I. Vibhute, P S A. Pillai Criminal Law (11thEd., Lexis Nexis Butterworths
Wadhwa, Nagpur)
- Jain M.P., Indian Constitutional Law, (6th ed., 2010), Lexis Nexis Butterworths
Wadhwa, Vol.1.
- John Woodroffe, Commentaries On Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1972 (Law
Publishers (India) Pvt. Ltd., 2009)

-Memorandum for the Petitioner- Page 3

 [BLBH]-415-MOOT COURT

- K.D. Gaur, Criminal Law Criminology and Administration of Criminal Justice (3rd
Ed., Universal Law Publishing Co Pvt Ltd., 2015)
- Kashyap S.C., Constitution of India, (2006), Universal Law Publishing Co.
- M.R. Mallick, R.K. Bag, A.N. Saha Criminal Reference (6thEd., Eastern Law House,
2009)
- Seervai .H.M., Constitutional Law of India, (4th ed., 2010), Universal Law Publishing
Co., Vol.2 & Vol.1.

DATABASES REFERRED

- http://www.scconline.com (last visited on 15th August, 2018).

- http://www.manupatra.com (last visited on 12th August, 2018).
- http://www.westlaw.org (last visited on 10th August, 2018).
- http://www.indiankanoon.com (last visited on 16th August, 2018).
- http://www.lexisnexis.com (last visited on 15th August, 2018).
- http://www.judis.nic.in (last visited on 16th August, 2018).

-Memorandum for the Petitioner- Page 4

 [BLBH]-415-MOOT COURT

STATEMENT OF FACTS

 Madan, a migrant from Eastern Uttam Pradesh shifted to Varamasi, He came to be

recognized as a local in Sunderpur with time.

 On 14/1/2018, 11 PM, police got information of transactions of narcotic drugs

registered the same, informed the superior authority and gazetted officer, and rushed
to Madan’s house. They barged in and conducted a search, neighbours protested but
police broke open locker and recovered eight kilograms of powdered substance (later
determined to be cannabis) that was seized and a seizure list was prepared but not
signed by the gazetted officer. Madan was arrested and sent to police remand for three
days by ACMM.

 The ACMM observed bruises and cuts on Madan’s body and denied police custody
and then, ordered Madan to be sent Central Prison and denied bail. The prosecutor’s
citation on such requests being allowed in serious offences and protest of the SHO/IO
against denial of the police custody was of no effect to the court.

 At the end of 14 days, Madan was again produced for continuation of his custody. His
lawyer cited instances of severe beatings by jail authorities and exhibited injury marks
on Madan’s body, thereby requesting the court to provide him protection in the prison
and demanded access to the Prison CCTV footage, but to no avail.

 On 05/02/2018, News Express published a report on the torture on the prisoners in

Prison and highlighted Madan’s case. Following the report, the Varamasi HC took suo
moto cognizance of the matter and appointed a Committee to inquire into the
allegations of prison torture and current situation in Prison.

 The Committee’s report dated 15/02/2018 stated instances where Madan was beaten
up by fellow inmates twice after which the authorities gave him proper medical
attention. The findings regarding the safety and security of Inmates was ambiguous
and therefore the HC could not conclude on the responsibility of Prison Authorities
and dismissed the matter.

-Memorandum for the Petitioner- Page 5

 [BLBH]-415-MOOT COURT

 On 10/03/2018, Sahyog, an NGO, filed a PIL against the torture committed on Madan
as violative of his rights.

 On 20/05/2018, Madan was found in dilapidated condition a kilometre away from the
Central Prison. He was admitted to City Hospital and was severely injured, had
internal bleeding and was found suffering from severe breathing distress, punctured
lungs, broken ribs and multiple fractures in body and severe head injuries, all pointing
towards repeated beatings with blunt objects and absence of medical attention.

 Sahyog sought for an FIR against the SHO and Jail Superintendent and investigation
into Madan’s injuries, by separate writ petition. The court intends to hear both the
matters together owing to them being related intricately.

-Memorandum for the Petitioner- Page 6

 [BLBH]-415-MOOT COURT

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The counsels representing the petitioner have endorsed their pleadings before the Hon`ble
High Court of Varamasi under Article 226 of the Constitution of Aryavarta in case of public
interest litigation and under Article 227 r/w Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in
case of writ petition, in which the Hon`ble Court has the jurisdiction.

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

-Memorandum for the Petitioner- Page 7

 [BLBH]-415-MOOT COURT

ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

I. THAT THE HON’BLE HC OF VARAMASI HAS JURISDICTION TO DECIDE THE

PRESENT PIL AND WRIT PETITION FILED BY AN NGO SAHYOG.

II. THAT THE ACTIONS OF THE POLICE PERSONNEL HAS VITIATED THE
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MADAN, CAUSING HIM PREJUDICE AND
DEPRIVING HIM OF HIS FUNDAMENTAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

III. THAT THE STATE OF VARAMASI HAS VIOLATED ART. 14, ART. 21 & ART.
20(1) OF THE ARYAVARTA CONSTITUTION WHEN IT FAILED TO ENSURE
MADAN, RIGHT TO HUMAN TREATMENT FREE FROM TORTURE.

-Memorandum for the Petitioner- Page 8

 [BLBH]-415-MOOT COURT

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. THAT THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF VARAMASI HAS JURISDICTION TO

DECIDE THE PRESENT PIL AND WRIT PETITION FILED BY AN NGO
SAHYOG.

It has been humbly submitted before the court that the PIL and the Writ Petition in
issue is maintainable in the Hon’ble High Court by virtue of article 226 and section
482 of criminal procedure code. It has been established by the Apex court in various
judgments that the presence of an alternative remedy puts no bar on filing of the
petition.

II. THAT THE ACTIONS OF THE POLICE PERSONNEL HAS VITIATED THE
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MADAN, CAUSING HIM PREJUDICE AND
DEPRIVING HIM OF HIS FUNDAMENTAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

It has been humbly submitted that the Police personnel’s act was not in accordance
with the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act and thereby the whole criminal
proceedings against him were vitiated.
Section 41 and 42 of the NDPS Act govern the procedure of arrest and search which
have to be complied with mandatorily when search and seizure takes place after
recording the information on which such search and seizure is based, but the
provisions have been overlooked as evident from the facts and therefore the
proceedings were prejudiced against Madan.

III. THAT THE STATE HAS VIOLATED MADAN’S CONSTITUTIONAL AND

HUMAN RIGHTS WHEN IT FAILED TO ENSURE HIM RIGHT TO HUMAN
TREATMENT FREE FROM TORTURE IN JAIL.

-Memorandum for the Petitioner- Page 9

 [BLBH]-415-MOOT COURT

It has been humbly submitted that the State has failed to protect Madan’s
Fundamental Right of Life and Liberty enshrined under Article 21, of the Constitution
which has been held to be available to persons in custody also through various rulings
of the Court. The violation of his rights is clearly evident from the fact that the
ACMM rejected his police custody solely on observation of signs of torture and later
when he was found in a dilapidated condition far away from the prison. Such torture
is not only violative of his rights guaranteed by the Constitution but also to the
International Instruments signed and ratified by Aryavarta.

-Memorandum for the Petitioner- Page 10

 [BLBH]-415-MOOT COURT

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

I. THAT THE HON’BLE HC OF VARAMASI HAS JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN

PRESENT PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) & WRIT PETITION.

I.1. Jurisdiction under Article 226 can always be invoked, thus the PIL filed by
Sahyog is maintainable in the Hon’ble HC of Varanasi.

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that if a PIL filed in interest of one
person, serves public purpose then such writ petition is maintainable as public
interest litigation under Article 226.1 In PUDR v. Union of India2 , court accepted
writ petition as PIL which was filed for one person because it was serving the public
purpose3 . Also the habeas corpus petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of
alternative remedy as personal liberty of detente is involved.4 It has been held in
plethora of cases that when the question of law of general public importance arises,
the jurisdiction of HC can be invoked. In the present case, the issue involves matter
of General Public Importance and hence, entitled to be maintainable.

In the present case, after the publication of report on torture committed on prisoners,
by national newspaper, News Express, the present case become the subject matter of
public importance and also torture inflicted upon the body of Madan during the time
when he was in jail violated his fundamental right to life that is Article 21 of the
Constitution, thus, in the present case writ petition is maintainable as PIL.

1
Indian Banks' Association, Bombay & Ors, v. Devkala Consultancy Service and Ors. AIR 2004 SC 2615.
2
2015 CriLJ 4141
3
Maharaj Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1976 SC 2602; See also: Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of

India, AIR 1984 SC 802, S. P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149
4
Kumari Lovely Singh & Another vs. Adheekshika Rajkiya Balgrih & 4 Others, habeas corpus W.P. No. -

28330 of 2016.

-Memorandum for the Petitioner- Page 11

 [BLBH]-415-MOOT COURT

I.2. The Hon’ble HC is well within rights to accept the writ petition on application
from the petitioner.

Every HC has inherent power to do real and substantial justice, for the administration
of which alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. Inherent
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be exercised:
(i) to give effect to an order under the Code,
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and
(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.
If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court,
then the court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers
in absence of specific provisions in the statute.5 The SC in Roy V.D. vs State of
kerala6 the court observed that the power under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. has to be
exercised by the HC, when proceedings are initiated based on illicit material
collected on search and arrest which are per se illegal and vitiate not only a
conviction and sentence bases on such material but also the trial itself, the
proceedings cannot be allowed to go on as it cannot but amount to abuse of the
process of the court; in such a case not quashing the proceedings would perpetuate
abuse of the process of the court resulting in great hardship and injustice to the
accused. Thus, exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. to quash
proceedings in a case like the one on hand, would indeed secure the ends of justice.
The Madras HC recently, in K. Raghupathy v The Commissioner of Police7on
10.07.17, held that a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for a direction to the police to
register an FIR is maintainable, without exhausting the alternate remedies provided
in the Code. Therefore, the existence of an alternative remedy is no bar to file
petition.

5
Inder Mohan Goswami & Another vs State Of Uttaranchal & Others, AIR 2008 SC 251
6
2001 (1) K.L.T. 86 (S.C).
7
Crl.O.P. SR.No. 28352 of 2017.

-Memorandum for the Petitioner- Page 12

 [BLBH]-415-MOOT COURT

It is humbly submitted that the present writ petition is maintainable and is not barred
by the existence of any alternative remedy.

II. THAT THE ACTIONS OF THE POLICE PERSONNEL HAS VITIATED THE
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MADAN, CAUSING HIM PREJUDICE AND
DEPRIVING HIM OF HIS FUNDAMENTAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

II.1.The police did not comply with the provisions of the NDPS Act, implying grave
injustice at grass root level of investigation and causing prejudice to Madan
thereby vitiating the whole proceedings against him.

The object of the NDPS Act is to make stringent provisions for control and regulation
of operations relating to those drugs and substances. At the same time, to avoid harm
to the innocent persons and to avoid abuse of the provisions by the officers, certain
safeguards are provided which in the context have to be observed strictly. Therefore
these provisions make it obligatory that such of those officers mentioned therein carry
out arrest or search as provided under Section 41 & 428. To that extent they are
mandatory. Consequently the failure to comply with these requirements thus affects
the prosecution case and therefore vitiates the trial.9 It has been repeatedly reiterated
by the apex court in many cases that the provisions of section 41 & 42 are mandatory
so far as the NDPS Act is concerned.10 It was also noticed that a Constitution Bench
in State of Punjab Vs. Baldev Singh11 has already laid down that provisions of Section
42 and 50 are mandatory and their non-compliance would render the investigation
illegal and the accused would be liable to be acquitted.

In the instant case the actions of police personnel did not comply with the provisions
of the above sections thereby vitiating the whole criminal proceedings against Madan.

8
State of Punjab vs. Balbir Singh, 1994 AIR 1872.
9
Ali Mustafa Abdul Rahman Moosa vs State Of Kerala, 1995 AIR 244, 1994 SCC (6) 569.
10
Karnail Singh vs State Of Haryana, criminal appeal no. 606 of 2004, State Of Rajasthan vs Jag Raj Singh @

Hansa, criminal appeal no.1233 of 2006.

11
(1999) 6Scc 172

-Memorandum for the Petitioner- Page 13

 [BLBH]-415-MOOT COURT

Firstly, they started doing search after 11 pm which contravenes the provisions of
NDPS Act that prescribes search to be done between sunrise and sunset and also
arrested Madan without any warrant.

The Apex court in the case of State Of Rajasthan vs Jag Raj Singh @ Hansa12 held
that the search which took place after sun set violates the provisions of Section 42(2)
proviso. The scheme indicates that in event the search has to be made between sun set
and sun rise, the warrant would be necessary unless officer has reasons to believe that
a search warrant or authorisation cannot be obtained without affording the opportunity
for escape of offender which grounds of his belief has to be recorded.

In the present case, there is no case that any ground for belief as contemplated by
proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 42 or Sub-section (2) of Section 42 was ever
recorded by the police team who proceeded to carry on search. The present is a case
where prosecution himself has come with case that secret information was received
from informer which was recorded and thereafter the police party proceeded towards
Madan’s house. When search is conducted after recording information under Section
42(1), the provisions of Section 42 has to be complied with.13 Thus the present is not a
case where on suspicion police ran into Madan’s house, hence, non-compliance of
Section 42(1) proviso and Section 42(2) had seriously prejudiced the accused.

SC in State of Punjab Vs. Balbir Singh14 stated non- compliance of provisions of

Section 42(1) and 42(2) and the Court acquitted accused on the ground that search
was conducted without conforming to the provisions of the NDPS Act and observed
that to this extent these provisions are mandatory and contravention of the same
would affect the prosecution case and vitiate the trial. It has been noticed in the
precedent law that any proceedings not in conformity with Section 42 of the NDPS

12
Criminal Appeal no.1233 of 2006.
13
State of Punjab vs. Balbir Singh, 1994 AIR 1872.
14
(1994) 3 SCC 299

-Memorandum for the Petitioner- Page 14

 [BLBH]-415-MOOT COURT

Act was per se illegal and would vitiate the trial and, therefore, any argument could
not be upon called to support the proceedings.15

Thus, due to non-compliance of above mandatory provisions of NDPS Act the

criminal proceedings initiated against Madan is vitiated and has prejudiced him thus,
he is liable to be acquitted of all charges against him.

III. THAT THE STATE HAS VIOLATED MADAN’S CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN
RIGHTS WHEN IT FAILED TO ENSURE HIM RIGHT TO HUMAN TREATMENT
FREE FROM TORTURE IN JAIL.

III.1. The State has failed to protect the fundamental rights of Madan
enshrined under the constitution of Aryavarta.

In Jolly George Varghese v Bank of Cochin16 , the high value of human dignity and
the worth of human person enshrined in Article 21 read with Article 14 and Article
19 obligate the State to incarcerate except under law which is fair, just and
reasonable in its procedural essence.
Detention does not deprive one of his Fundamental Rights.17 It has been adjudicated
in a number of cases that an arrestee is not deprived of his fundamental rights for the
sole cause that he is in the police custody and is detained.

Article 21- “No person shall be deprived of his life and liberty except according to
the procedure established by law.”

In Maneka Gandhi’s18 scope and ambit of Article 21 expanded connotation of “life”

that “life means more than mere animal existence. The provision equally prohibits
the mutilation of the body by the amputation of an arm or leg, or the putting out of an

15
Gopal & Ors vs. State, Criminal Misc (Pet.) No. 3073 / 2014.
16
AIR 1980 SC 470.
17
Prabhakar Pandurang v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1966 SC 424.
18
AIR 1978 SC 597.

-Memorandum for the Petitioner- Page 15

 [BLBH]-415-MOOT COURT

eye or the destruction, of any other organ of the body through which the soul
communicates with the other world.”19 The SC held that right to life is one of the
basic human rights, guaranteed to every person by Article 21 and not even the State
has authority to violate it, it includes a guarantee against torture and assault even by
the State and its functionaries.
A prisoner does not cease to be a human being even when lodged in jail; he continues
to enjoy all his fundamental rights including the right to life.20 In Francis Corali
Mullin v Union Territory of Delhi21the SC has condemned cruelty or torture as being
violative of Article 21 in the following words, “any form of torture or cruel, inhuman
or degrading treatment would be offensive to human dignity and constitute an in-road
into this right to live and it would, on this view, be prohibited by Article 21 unless it
is in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. In Mohan Lal Sharma v State
of Uttar Pradesh22 , the SC has ruled that it is well recognised right under Article 21
that legal detention does not mean that he could be tortured or beaten up. If it is
found that the police have ill-treated a detente, he would be entitled to monetary
compensation under Article 21.23

On placing reliance on the above precedents, Petitioner humbly submits before the
Hon’ble court that in the case in hand the State has clearly deprived Madan of his
Right to life, as Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate24 himself observed severe
bruises and cuts on Madan’s face and arms also25, when he was brought before
ACMM from police custody after three days of his arrest. Because of the torture
committed upon Madan during police custody, the ACMM denied further police
custody. Even after being sent to Central Prison, the prison authorities did not take
mercy upon him and continue to torture him again and again, his lawyer cited many

19
Kharak Singh v. State o f UP, AIR 1963 SC 1295.
20
State o f Andhra Pradesh v. Challa Ramkrishna Reddy, AIR 2000 SC 2083.
21
AIR 1981 SC 746.
22
(1989) 2 SCC 314
23
Smt. Nilabati Behera vs State Of Orissa And Ors, 1993 AIR 1960.
24
Hereinafter referred to as ACMM.
25
Paragraph 3, fact sheet.

-Memorandum for the Petitioner- Page 16

 [BLBH]-415-MOOT COURT

instances of severe beatings by jail authorities and exhibited injury marks from lathis
and belts on the person of Madan and access to the prison CCTV footage was said to
be unavailable due to technical reasons by the Prosecution.26 The Committee in its
report also has stated two instances where Madan was beaten up by fellow inmates
and also the so called appointed committee gave evasive findings on the safety and
security of inmates, thereby trying to hide or cover the peculiar conditions of prison
officials. Multiple injuries inflicted to him while he was in police custody and
thereafter he was thrown out of the jail. Madan was continuously tortured and found
in dilapidated condition just a kilometre away from the Central Prison. He was
severely injured and also had internal bleeding & suffering from severe breathing
distress. The doctors also found his lungs to be punctured, ribs broken and multiple
fractures in the body and severe injury on head. The injuries pointed towards severe
and repeated beatings with blunt objects, including lathis and rifle stock and absence
of medical attention.27 The medical evidence comprising the testimony of the doctor,
who is treating Madan, states that possibility of all the injuries indicates that all of
them have resulted from the merciless beating given to him.
It is submitted that the State has lucidly violated Madan’s Fundamental Rights to life
and liberty as it failed to protect him from torture thereby created a situation of life
and death. Thus, any form of torture, or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment is a
violation of Article 21 of the Constitution whether it occurs during interrogation,
investigation or otherwise.28

III.2. The State has violated the human rights of Madan protected under
International instruments, Aryavarta has signed and ratified.

The human rights are said to be the natural and basic birth rights of all human being
without any discrimination. Human rights are also available to persons under
detention including convicted or under trial prisoners. Therefore, every human being
in jail or detention enjoys all basic human rights without any discrimination.

26
Paragraph 4, fact sheet.
27
Paragrapg 8, fact sheet.
28
D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 610.

-Memorandum for the Petitioner- Page 17

 [BLBH]-415-MOOT COURT

Article of 25 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights29 says that “All Human

beings are said to be born free and equal in dignity”. It also states that: “No one shall
be subject to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of punishment”. The
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights30 states that “All persons
deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the
inherent dignity of the human person”. The binding principle at an international level
is that "all persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with
respect for the inherent dignity of a human person."31

In particular, that prisoner will not be tortured or subjected to cruel, inhuman or

degrading treatment or punishment.32 According to Article 10 the United Nations
Human Rights Committee on ICCPR, the State party has a positive obligation
towards those persons who are particularly vulnerable bcz of their status as persons
deprived of their liberty.33 Article 6 of the ICCPR defines every state shall keep
proper check on techniques used by the police officers for interrogation and
arrangements shall be made for custody and treatment of persons who are in
custody.34
In Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das35, the SC has referred to UDHR,
when it observed: “the applicability of the UDHR and principles thereof may have to
be read if need be, into the domestic jurisprudence” The SC by interpreting Article
21 has developed the human rights jurisprudence for the preservation and protection
of prisoner’s right to human dignity. In Vishakha v State of Rajasthan36 the SC held
that it is now an accepted rule of judicial construction that regards must be had to

29
Hereinafter referred to as UDHR.
30
Hereinafter referred to as ICCPR.
31
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, Article 10(1).
32
Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
33
General Comments No. 21, UN Human Rights Committee on Civil and Political Rights, 1992, para 3
34
Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
35
AIR 2000 SC 988 at 997.
36
AIR 1997 SC 3011

-Memorandum for the Petitioner- Page 18

 [BLBH]-415-MOOT COURT

International Conventions and norms for construing domestic law when there is no
inconsistency between them.

In the instant case, there is a clear violation of Madan’s human rights. The national
newspaper also came to know the plight of Madan and published a report on torture
meted out to the prisoners in Prison. The injuries inflicted upon the person of Madan
was caused by blunt objects like lathis and rifle stock which could only be in
possession of prison authorities and no other inmates can be found in the possession
of such deadly weapons. A 2016 report by the Commonwealth Human Rights
Initiative37 covering 1,387 jails across Aryavarta found that merely five of them were
monitored as required by the law and only four states had appointed independent
visitors in all their jails. It is high time that something needs to be done regarding the
poor conditions of jails and their management.

37
Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, 2016.

-Memorandum for the Petitioner- Page 19

 [BLBH]-415-MOOT COURT

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this Hon`ble
Court be pleased to :

1. Hold the present PIL and writ petition filed by the petitioner as maintainable.

2. Hold the actions of the police personnel during search, seizure and investigation
as not being in accordance with the mandatory provisions and thus vitiating the
proceedings against the accused.

3. Hold that the state has violated the fundamental and human rights and has failed to
ensure human treatment in prison, free from torture.

4. Direct the registration of FIR against the SHO and Jail Superintendent and
investigation into Madan’s grievous injuries.

5. Award compensatory damages in lieu of the torture, bodily and mental agony
caused to Madan.

OR

Pass any other order that it may deem fit in the interest of justice, equity & good
conscience. All of which is most humbly prayed.

On behalf of
SAHYOG

Counsel for the Petitioner

Sd/

-Memorandum for the Petitioner- Page 20