TC b29.... Memorial For The Respondents

B-29
UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES, PANJAB UNIVERSITY
INTRA DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DELHI
Appeal No.___/2018
In the matter of
STATE OF SAURAMASHTHA, KIKI NEWS AND OTHERS…………………………….APPELLANT
V.
JUSTICE AMAR SHERGILL, SEQUOIA , NGO AND OTHERS………………………...RESPONDENTS
UNDER ARTICLE 32 AND 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
1|P a ge
MEMORIAL ONON
MEMORIAL BEHALF
BEHALFOF
OFTHE
THE RESPONDENTS
RESPONDENTS
Contents
LIST OF ABBREVIATION .................................................................................................................... 4
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.................................................................................................................... 5
TABLE OF CASES................................................................................................................................. 8
STATEMENT OF FACTS ...................................................................................................................... 9
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ...................................................................................................... 10
ISSUES ................................................................................................................................................. 11
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ........................................................................................................... 12
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ............................................................................................................... 15
[A] WHETHER OR NOT ARREST OF SEQUOIA AMOUNTS TO ILLEGAL DETENTION? ....... 15
[A.1] MEANING OF ILLEGAL DETENTION......................................................................................... 15
[A.2] MERE MEMBERSHIP OF BANNED ORGANIZATION WILL NOT MAKE A PERSON A CRIMINAL ... 15
[A.3] PROCEDURE OF ARREST......................................................................................................... 16
[A.4] ADVOCACY AND INCITEMENT ................................................................................................ 17
[A.5] PASSIVE MEMBER DIFFERENT FROM AN ACTIVE MEMBER..................................................... 18
[A.6] ARTICLE 21 AND PRISONER’S RIGHTS ..................................................................................... 19
[A.7] INTERNATIONAL NORMS AND PRINCIPLES IN REGARD TO PRISONER’S RIGHT ....................... 20
[A.8] DUBIOUS CHARACTER OF NIA ................................................................................................ 20
[B] WHETHER OR NOT THE STATE HAS FLOATED THE NORMS FOR ARRESTING A
JUDICIAL OFFICER? ...................................................................................................................... 22
[B.1] JUDICIAL OFFICER DEFINED .................................................................................................... 22
[B.2] FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION ................................................................................ 22
[B.3] ARREST OF THE JUDICIAL OFFICERS ....................................................................................... 23
[B.4] ARRESTS OF JUDICIAL OFFICER UNDER SECTION 153A AND 153B OF INDIAN PENAL CODE..... 23
[B.5] CONTEMPT OF THE COURT .................................................................................................... 24
2|P a ge
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
[B.6] JUDGE MADE LAWS ............................................................................................................... 24
[C] WHETHER OR NOT THE KIKI NEWS CHANNEL HAS A CONSIDERABLE IMPACT IN
PROVIDING FAIR TRIAL TO SEQUOIA AND JUSTICE AMAR SHERGILL? ............................ 25
[C.1] MEANING OF FAIR TRIAL....................................................................................................... 25
[C.2] TRIAL BY MEDIA IS CONTEMPT OF COURT ............................................................................. 25
[C.3] GAG ORDER ........................................................................................................................... 26
[D] WHETHER OR NOT THE STATE OF PRAAKRIT IS FOLLOWING INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNISED

PRINCIPLES, STANDARDS AND COVENTIONS? .................................................................................... 27
[D.1] APPEAL FILED BY THE STATE .................................................................................................. 27
[D.2] LOCUS STANDI AND PIL ......................................................................................................... 29
PRAYER .............................................................................................................................................. 31
3|P a ge
LIST OF ABBREVIATION
S.No. Abbreviations Full Form
1. CrLJ Criminal Law Journal
2. Co. Company
3. Hon’ble Honorable
4. QB Queen’s Bench
5. KLJ Kerela Law Journal
6. Anr. Another
7. Crpn. Corporation
8. DLT Delhi Law Tribunal
9. HC High Court
10. Art. Article
11. i.e. That is
12. SUPP Supplement
13. AIR All India Reporter
14. Ltd. Limited
15. Ors. Others
16. Pvt. Private
17. SC Supreme Court
18. SCC Supreme Court Cases
19. SLP Special Leave Petition
4|P a ge
20. SCR Supreme Court Reporter
21. In Re In re
22. NHRC National Human Rights Commission
23. Vs. Versus
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
BOOKS
 INDIAN COUNTER-TERRORISM LAW
SHRUTI BEDI ,INDIAN COUNTER TERRORISM LAW (Lexis Nexis Butterworths,New

Delhi, 2016)
 INDIAN PENAL CODE
R.A NELSON, INDIAN PENAL CODE (Lexis Nexis Butterworth New Delhi, 2003)
K.D. GAUR, CRIMINAL LAW-CASES AND MATERIALS (Lexis Nexis Butterworths, New
Delhi, 2005)
K.D. GAUR, A TEXTBOOK ON THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (Lexis Nexis Butterworths
New Delhi, 2005)
 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
M.P. Jain, Code of Civil Procedure (Wadhwa & Company, Nagpur 2007).
Justice P. Sathasivam, I.N. Mulla's The Code of Civil Procedure (2nd Ed. Ashoka Law House
2011).
 LAW OF EVIDENCE
BATUKLAL (2006).THE LAW OF EVIDENCE, Central law Agency ALLAHABAD.
5|P a ge
S.K.SARKAR, And EJAZ AHMADH (2006). LAW OF EVIDENCE, Vol. 1, 6 th Ed., New
Delhi: Ashoka Law House.
S.D. BASU, LAW OF EVIDENCE, Allahabad Law Agency (3rd Ed, 2015).
DICTIONARIES
 Lexion law dictionary (1979), Ed. 3, West Group
 Judicial Dictionary, J. L.P. Singh & P.K. Majumdar, Ed. 2nd
 Judicial Dictionary, K.J. Aiyer, Ed. 15th 2010
 Black’s Law Dictionary, Ed.8th
STATUTES
 The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
 The Indian Penal Code, 1860.
 The Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967
 The Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
 Press Council Act, 1978
 Cable Television Networks Regulation Act, 1995
WEBSITES
LEGAL WEBSITES
 www.scconline.com
 http://www.legalservicesindia.com
6|P a ge
 http://www.jstor.org
 www.indiankanoon.com
7|P a ge
TABLE OF CASES
1. Arup Bhuyan, 2011 3 SCC 377
2. Indira Das v State of Assam 2011 3 SCC 380
3. Joginder Kumar v State of U.P. 1994 scc 4 260
4. D.k. Basu v State of West Bengal 1997 1 SCC 416
5. Jyoti Babasaheb Chorge v State of Maharashtra 2007 BOM (CR1) 186
6. M. Londhoni Devi v NIA 2011 SCC GAU 278
7. Maneka Gnadhi v UOI 1978 AIR 597
8. Ram Bali v State of U.P. 2004 10 SCC 598
9. S. Rangarajan v P jagjivan 1989 2 SCC 574
10. Sri Vasunanthan v The Registrar 2017 SCC AIR 424
11. Delhi Judicial Service Assoc v State of Guajarat 1991 AIR 2176
12. RE: DC Saxena AIR 1996 SC 2481
13. keshavananda Bharti v State of Kerela 1973 SCC 4 225
14. S.P. Gupta case 1981 SCC 87
15. Rudul Shah case 1983 4 SCC 141
16. Vishakha Case 1997 SCC 6 241
17. Vineet Narayan Case 1998 1 scc 226
18. Sakshi Case 199 6 scc 591
19. Prakash Singh Badal 2006 1 SCC Cr1
20. Nirman Singh Kahlon v State of Punjab 2009 1 scc 441
8|P a ge
21. Sahara Real Estate v SEBI 2012 12 SCC 610
22. Ram avtar Shukla v Arvind Shukla SSUP 2 SCC 130
23.Indian Bank Assoc of Bombay v Devkala Consultancy and ors 2004 SCC 1
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1.Sequoia is an intellectual supporting rights of the Moists and has no criminal records
whar\tsover. In 2010, Sequoia became member of Communist Party of Praakit (CPP) (Maosit)
and attended a couple of meetings of CPP .In September 2012, Sequoia was arrested on allegedly
being a member of banned CPP.
2. In 2012 Persons were killed in an attack on Security Forces (SF) camp in the STPS police
station area, for which Sequoia has now been arrested. A series of bomb exploded and the Naxals
allegedly resorted to firing. It has been alleged by the police that he was present in one of the
meetings in which bombing plans were made. Sequoia has been booked for murder and rioting
under the Praakrit Penal Code and sections 18 and 20 of the UAPA. He has been booked in
seven cases in their to. However other persons has been released on the bail. It has been the
policy of the state since colonial times to keep political prisoners segregated from the general
mass of prisoners. . He also wrote the letter to the NHRC for the better treatment of the political
prisoners. He also contended that mere membership of the banned community does not amount
the person is a criminal which was stated in the famous case of Anup bhuyan . NIA was in the
support of the police officer.
3.Justice Amar posted his views on FACEBOOK which stirred up a debate involving all political
parties and triggered an online movement for release of Sequoia. Justice Amar was arrested for
having links with Sequoi, Maosits terrorists. An FIR was registered against him under sections of
IPC and also served a contempt notice by Hon’ble Supreme Court.
4. That Sequoia filed a petition under Article 32 of constitution alleging violation of Right to Fair
Trial and prayed for a gag order.That Kiki news channel broadcasted a one hour show on
historical background of Justice Amar and Sequoia. Justice Amar and Sequoia filed a petition
under Article 226 in High Court citing violation of right to be forgotten.
9|P a ge
5. A writ was filed by the NGO in the favour of Sequia and Justice for the release of them That
HC of Sauramashtha ordered release of all activities and quashed FIR against Justice Amar. That
state also appealed to SC. PIL was filed by Kashi Goroor under Article 32 for the recognising
the political prisoners. Court clubbed the appeal and the PIL and decided to hear the matters.
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
It is hereby submitted the present case to the honorable Supreme Court of India under Article 32
and Article 136 of the Constitution of India in accordance with the given facts .Both parties have
accepted jurisdiction of of the honorable Supreme Court of India pususnat to above articles i.e
Article ARTICLE 32 (Right to move the Supreme Court for the Enforcement of Fundamental
Rights) and ARTICLE 136(Appeal by Special Leave) before this honorable Supreme Court.
10 | P a g e
ISSUES
[A] WHETHER OR NOT THE ARREST OF SEQUOIA AMOUNTS TO ILLEGAL

DETENTION?
[B] WHETHER OR NOT THE STATE HAS FLOUTED THE NORMS OF ARRESTING A
JUDICIAL OFFICER?
[C] WHEHTER OR NOT THE KIKI NEWS CHANNEL HAS A CONSIDERABLE IMPACT
IN PROVIDING FAIR TRIAL TO SEQUOIA?
[D.] WHETHER OR NOT MR. KASHI GAROOR HAS LOCUS STANDI IN REGARD TO
THE PIL FILED BY HIM?
11 | P a g e
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE 1
[A] WHETHER OR NOT THE ARREST OF SEQUOIA AMOUNTS TO ILLEGAL

DETENTION?
Being a member of any banned organization does not make any person a criminal unless he
resorts to violence or incites people to violence or creates public disorder by violence or
incitement to violence. It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble court that detention of Sequoia
is illegal as the police has alleged that he was present in the meetings where bombing was
planned but there is substantial lack of evidence in that regard. Moreover Charge sheet is yet to
be filed against Sequoia in this case (STPS) till date. So we can clearly see that the police has
flouted the procedure of arresting him and has illegally detained him for several years.
ISSUE 2
[B] WHETHER OR NOT THE STATE HAS FLOUTED THE NORMS OF ARRESTING A
JUDICIAL OFFICER?
It is humbly requested before the Hon’ble Supreme court that Justice Amar Shergill being the
citizen of Praakrit, expressed his views by virtue of his right to freedom of speech and expression
which is given in the article 19 of the Constitution. Moreover It is humbly submitted that the
guidelines with regard to arrest of a judicial officer given in Delhi Judicial Service Association,
Tis Hazari Court, Delhi vs State of Gujarat and others have not been followed by the state. Also
it is humbly requested that Right to be Forgotten be granted as an extension of Right to Privacy
as has been recognised by the High courts.
12 | P a g e
ISSUE 3
[C] WHEHTER OR NOT THE KIKI NEWS CHANNEL HAS A CONSIDERABLE IMPACT
IN PROVIDING FAIR TRIAL TO SEQUOIA AND JUSTICE AMAR SHERGILL?
It is humbly submitted Media showed the Facebook post in a manner that someone who
sympathises with Sequoia is livid. This led some people in country to believe that Sequoia has
challenged the Constitution and had promoted the armed resurrection and that Justice Amar
Shergill supports it. Kiki news channel has violated the right to be forgotten as a part of right to
privacy. Moreover it has violated the Gag order issued by the High Court.
ISSUE 4
[D.]WHETHER THE STATE OF PRAAKRIT IS FOLLOWING INTERNATIONALLY

RECOGNISED PRINCIPLES ,STANDARDS AND COVENTIONS ?
It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that state of Praakrit is not following the
international norms and principles like Universal Declaration Of Human Rights(UDHR) And
International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights and various other instruments. The state Of
Praakrit is Signatory to International Norms and principles. The true test of “good governance” is
the degree to which it delivers on the promise of civil, cultural, economic, political and social
rights. Thus, the key benchmark for judging effective governance is whether or not public
institutions are effectively guaranteeing rights such as right to health, housing, food, education,
and justice, besides ensuring effective safety in the country.There Are certain Rights which are to
be followed by Praakrit in regard to prisoners rights. A person named Kashi garner has filed PIL
that tp give the recommendations for the prison rigshts.
13 | P a g e
14 | P a g e
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
[A] WHETHER OR NOT ARREST OF SEQUOIA AMOUNTS TO ILLEGAL

DETENTION?
Being a member of any organization although banned does not means the person is criminal. It is
humbly submitted before this hon'ble court that detention of Sequoia is not valid and contrary to
the legal provisions of Praakrit.
[A.1] MEANING OF ILLEGAL DETENTION
Detention is the act of retaining a person or property. Illegal detention is the unjustifiable
imprisonment or the unlawful deprivation of liberty of a person by way of arrest for a wrongful
cause or suspicion and the continued restriction of personal freedom by retaining such person in
custody.
[A.2] MERE MEMBERSHIP OF BANNED ORGANIZATION WILL NOT MAKE A

PERSON A CRIMINAL
Sequoia was arrested in Sauramashtha in September 2012 merely on allegations of being a

member of the banned Communist Party of Praakrit. It is to be pointed out before this hon’ble
court that Sequoia was a member of banned organization i.e Communist Party of Praakrit(CPP)
and has attended couple of meetings but was not involved in the incidents of 2012 for which he
has now been arrested on ground of mere allegations. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
the case of Arup Bhuyan1 held that mere membership of banned organization will not make a
person a criminal unless he resorts to violence or incites people to violence. Since Sequoia is just
supporting the rights of Maoists and has no criminal record. There is no evidence whatsoever
that he incited people to violence nor did he himself commit violence against anybody. The
court also stated that : “In our opinion, Section 3(5) cannot be read literally otherwise it will
violate Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. It has to be read in the light of our observations
made above. Hence, mere membership of a banned organisation will not make a person a
1
2011 (3) SCC 377
15 | P a g e
criminal unless he resorts to violence or incites people to violence or creates public disorder by
violence or incitement to violence.” The court held that since the PFI 2 was not banned, the
accused could not be penalized for belonging to it. The Court further observed that even if they
were to presume that PFI is an illegal organization, they were ‘yet to consider whether all
members of the organization can be automatically held to be guilty’. The Court also held that
there was no prima facie proof that the accused was involved in the crime and had thus not
violated the proviso to section 43D(5) of the UAPA on bail. In Indra Das v. State of Assam3,
there is no evidence against the appellant except the confessional statement which was
subsequently retracted by applent . also the confessional statement was not corroborated by any
other evidence. In this case the hon’blesupreme court held that :
“In Arup Bhuyan case we have stated that mere membership of a banned organisation cannot
incriminate a person unless he is proved to have resorted to acts of violence or incited people to
imminent violence, or does an act intended to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by
resort to imminent violence. In the present case, even assuming that the appellant was a member
of ULFA which is a banned organisation, there is no evidence to show that he did acts of the
nature abovementioned. Thus, even if he was a member of ULFA it has not been proved that he
was an active member and not merely a passive member. Hence the decision in Arup Bhuyan
case squarely applies in this case.”
[A.3] PROCEDURE OF ARREST
It is humbly submitted that Sequoia was arrested in sauramashtha in September 2012 on

allegations of being a banned Communist Party of Praakrit(CPP). But a Charge sheet is yet to be
filed against Sequoia in this case (STPS) till date. So we can clearly see that the police has
flouted the procedure of arresting him.
In Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh4,the apex court has issued directions regarding
arrest. The court has emphasized that a police officer may have the power of arrest without
justification for exercising the power is quite another matter. The arrest can cause incalculable
harm to a person’s reputation and self-esteem. Arrest should be made not merely on suspicion
2
People’s Front of India
3
2011 (3) SCC 380
4
1994 (4) SCC 260
16 | P a g e
but only after a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness
and bonafides of the complaint and a reasonable belief as to the person’s complicity and even as
to the need to effect arrest.
The point to be noted is that the certain rights of an arrested person i.e.in the present case, of
Sequoia, are ignored i.e he has right that a relative /friend of his be informed about his arrest and
place of his detention ;he has right to consult the lawyer privately.
In D.K Basu v/s State of West Bengal 5, the Court has laid down detailed guidelines to be
followed by the6 police at the time of arrest and detention. There are basically 11 guidelines
which specify the procedure or method at the time of arrest. Among those guidelines the state of
Praakrit has completely ignored that the arrestee should be subjected to medical
examination by a trained doctor every 48 hours during his detention in custody by a doctor
on the panel of approved doctors appointed by Director, health Services of the concerned state or
union territory. Director, Health Services should prepare such a penal for all tehsils and districts
as well.
It is humbly submitted that Septic tank principle is continued as the basis for his secluded and
segregated treatment. Not only is he kept separate, but he is not allowed to meet relatives, no
interviews and basic necessities of life are also denied to him. This is clear violation of Universal
Declaration Of Human Rights (UDHR) and International Covenant of Civil And Political Rights.
[A.4] ADVOCACY AND INCITEMENT
It is humbly submitted Sequoia being an intellectual person was exercising his advocacy skills
for the protection of rights of Maoists. The point to be noted here is that there’s a difference
between advocacy of the rights of Maoists and the advocacy for commission of an act of
violence. There is no evidence whatsoever that he incited or even advocated Maoists people to
commit an act of violence rather his research papers clearly shows his work for just the
protection of rights of Maoists.
5
[(1997) 1 SCC 416; AIR 1997 SC 610
17 | P a g e
Section 18. Punishment for Conspiracy:
“Whoever conspires or attempts to commit, or advocates, abets, advises or incites directs or

knowingly facilitates the commission of a 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.”
In State of Kerela v Raneef7, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India have respectfully agreed with
the opinion of the US Supreme Court in Elfbrandt v. Russell816 L Ed 2d 321 US Douglas, J. of
speaking for the majority observed:
“Those who join an organization but do not share its unlawful purpose and who do not
participate in its unlawful activities surely pose no threat, either as citizens or as public
employees. … A law which applies to membership without the ‘specific intent’ to further the
illegal aims of the organization infringes unnecessarily on protected freedoms. It rests on the
doctrine of ‘guilt by association’ which has no place here.”
[A.5] PASSIVE MEMBER DIFFERENT FROM AN ACTIVE MEMBER
Section 20 of Unlawful Activities And Prevention Act talks about the punishment for being a
member of terrorist organization or gang. Section 20 has been enacted as a reasonable restriction
on the freedoms contemplated under article 19 .Accordingly the concept of ‘membership’ is to
be interpreted in the light of these freedoms.
Observed from this point of view the membership to a terrorist gang or organization cannot be
a passive membership. It has to be treated as an active membership which results in
participation in the activities of terrorist gang or organization which are performed to carry out
the aims and objectives of terrorist gang or organization by means of violence or other unlawful
means.
7
2011 (1) SCC 784
8
16 L Ed 2d 321
18 | P a g e
It is very clear from the observation made by the Supreme Court that if Section 20 were to be
interpreted in that manner, it would at once be considered as violative of Article 19 and
would be struck down as ultra vires. In fact, judges of the Supreme Court of India have
interpreted the concept of membership as an active membership to save the relevant provision
from eng declared as unconstitutional. It becomes very clear that Sequoia was passive member
not an active member.
In Ms. Jyoti Babasaheb Chorge v State of Maharashtra 9, the High Court stated that it seemed
that applicants had come in contact with members of the said organization, and were perhaps
learning about the philosophy at ideology of the said organization. Therefore, simply on the
basis of this association cannot be prima facie held as offenders. It is impossible to hold that
all such persons a to be treated as members of a terrorist organization, or that they are liable to be
punish for having some faith in such philosophy, or for having sympathy for those propagate
such philosophy. It is in this context, that the concept of active members and passive
membership has been judicially evolved.
In M. Londhoni Devi v. National Investigation Agency 10, a distinction was sought to be made
between a “banned organisation” and a “terrorist organization. Chief Justice Aladan B. lokur (as
he then was) speaking for the Court stated that: “it cannot be forgotten that Parliament has
provided a huge margin in the quantum of punishment for membership of a terrorist
organization. If mere membership of a terrorist organisation is expected to invite serious penal
consequences, the Legislature would not have given such a wide discretion to the Trial Judge in
the matter of sentencing. Therefore the mere allegation of membership of a terrorist organisation
cannot ipso r the severest penalty under the statute. The level of involvement in the activities of
such banned activities to be noted before any kind of decision is reached .
[A.6] ARTICLE 21 AND PRISONER’S RIGHTS
In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India11, it has been ruled that a prisoner, be he a convict, under-
trial or a detenu, does not cease to be a human being. Even when lodged in the jail, he continues
9
2013 BOM (CR1) 186, Bombay High Court
10
2011 SCC GAU 278
11
1978 AIR 597
19 | P a g e
to enjoy all his fundamental rights including the right to life. In this context, it may, therefore, be
stated that the Supreme Court while interpreting Article 21, has laid down a new Constitutional
and Prison Jurisprudence.
[A.7] INTERNATIONAL NORMS AND PRINCIPLES IN REGARD TO PRISONER’S

RIGHT
Praakrit is Signatory to International Norms and principles. The true test of “good governance” is
and justice, besides ensuring effective safety in the country. There are certain rights which are to
be followed by Praakrit in regard to prisoners rights;
International human rights law is binding on all States and their agents, including prison
officials. All prisoners shall be offered a proper medical examination and treatment as soon as
possible after admission.12 All prisoners shall be provided with wholesome and adequate food at
the usual hours and with drinking water available whenever needed. 13 Decisions about a
prisoner’s health should be taken only on medical grounds by medically qualified people. 14 If the
state of Praakrit is signatory to international conventions then it is the duty of the state to follow
it but the state of Praakrit is completely in violation of international norms and international
principles and conventions. Sequoia has not been provided any right in regard to prisioners rights
and he was been segrated and secluded by state of Praakrit in violation of theses norms.
[A.8] DUBIOUS CHARACTER OF NIA
“It is to be remembered that in 2015 that Rohini Salian, the senior public prosecutor in Malegaon
case filed an affidavit stating that the NIA approached her asking to go soft on the case. She was
12
Principles on Detention or Imprisonment, principle 24; Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners
13
Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners ,rule20
14
20 | P a g e
subsequently removed from the position presumably for refusing to cooperate. Colonel Shrikanth
Purohith, one of the prime accused in the case recently got bail from the jail because the NIA
could not charge sheet him even after 9 years of his arrest. Reports say that the fate of Samjhauta
Express blast case is going in the same direction.
“NIA’s dubious reports were crucial when peaceful and lawful Muslim initiatives like Muslim
Research Foundation was banned and Islamic scholars like Zakir Naik were demonized. It urged
the central government to end misuse of the NIA as a political weapon and called upon on all
democratic forces and people’s organisations to raise voice against such grave violations.
21 | P a g e
[B] WHETHER OR NOT THE STATE HAS FLOATED THE NORMS FOR
ARRESTING A JUDICIAL OFFICER?
The arrest of Justice Amar Shergill was contrary to the norms of arrest of arresting a judicial
officer. It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that the arrest of Justice Amar Shergill is
contrary to the procedural laws of arrest.
[B.1] JUDICIAL OFFICER DEFINED
According to black law dictionary, judicial officer is the officer of the court who mades a
decision, usually refers to lesser judges such as a justice of the peace or a magistrate judge. 15 It is
humbly requested before the honourable court that Justice Amar Shergill is 67 year old human
right activist and always worked for the rights of people of Praakrit. Generally, “A human rights
activist is one who believes and works either as an individual or as a member of an organization
in order to promote and campaign for the basic rights and freedoms that humans are entitled to”.
[B.2] FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION
Freedom of Speech and Expression has held to be basic and indivisible for a democratic polity16,
the citizens most cherished and sacred right, the ‘prized priviledge’. It is said to be a cornerstone
of the functioning of the democracy17 It is essential to the rule of the law and the liberty of the
citizens18 In the case of S. Rangarajan v P. Jagjiva19, it was held by the court that the
democratic form of government, itself demand its citizen active and intelligent participation in
the affairs of the community. The public discussion with the people’s participation is a basic
feature and a rational process of democracy, which distinguishes it from all other forms of
government.It is humbly requested before the court that Justice Amar Shergill being the citizen
of Praakrit he also expressed by virtue of his right to freedom of speech and expression which is
given in the article 19 of the Constitution. 20
15
Black Law Dictionary,2nd Edition
16
this right is recognised internationally as a HUMAN RIGHT under the UNiversal Declaration of Human Rights
,1948 as also under the International Covenant on civil and Political rights. The right is identical with the 1st
amendment of the US constitution, 1791
17
union of india v motion picture association, AIR 1999 SC 2334
18
DC Saxena, AIR 1996 SC 2481
19
1989 (2) SCC 574
20
Section 69 of the Information Technology Act, 2000
22 | P a g e
It is therefore submitted before the honorable court that, in our case the Justice Amar Shergill
being human rights activist has made his views or posted his views on social media on the
activities which are going in the city of Praakrit which has led to release the Sequoia because he
just to tended to defame the Government but wanted that public should know that the treatment
in the prisons of the political prisoners is not fair.
[B.3] ARREST OF THE JUDICIAL OFFICERS
In the case of Delhi Judicial Service Association, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi vs State of Gujarat
and others21, certain guidelines has been given for the arrest of Judicial Officer and it was
held that these guidelines are not exhaustive but are the minimum safeguards to be observed
in case of arrest of a Judicial Officer. These should be implemented by the State Governments
as well as by the High Courts. It is humbly submitted before the court that the Justice Amar
Shergill was arrested for having links with Sequoia. An FIR was registered against him under the
section of 153A and 153B and the police officer flouted the norms which are stated in the above
case and the put him behind the bar.
[B.4] ARRESTS OF JUDICIAL OFFICER UNDER SECTION 153A AND 153B OF

INDIAN PENAL CODE
The above stated section seeks to provide that that the Justice Amar Shergill was trying to make
disharmony in the society but it is humbly submitted before the honourable court that Justice was
only trying to give its views or was supporting Seqiua that the condition of the political prisoners
was not good as they were not given the equal treatment as like of other prisoners. So the charges
under which he was arrested are flouting the norms.The essential ingredient of section 153A
includes promotion or attempts to promote disharmony or feeling of enmity ,hatred or ill-will.
In section 153A it basically provides about the use of violence and the criminal force having
sufficient mens rea about this but in the given case such type of happening did not take place. So
the section 153A for which the judicial officer is charged is violative. This Court has held in
Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab 221995 3 SCC 214 that mens rea is a necessary ingredient for
21
1991 AIR 2176
22
1995 3 SCC 214
23 | P a g e
the offence under Section 153-A. Mens rea is an equally necessary postulate for the offence
under Section 505(2) also as could be discerned from the words “with intent to create or promote
or which is likely to create or promote” as used in that sub-section.So it is humbly submitted
before the court that in this case Justice Amar Shergill did use the words but not being the
member of any group having no mens rea which try to disturb the sovereignty and intergrity of
the nation.
[B.5] CONTEMPT OF THE COURT
The right of freedom of speech and expression does not entitle a person to commit the contempt
of court23.. In the case of Re: DC Saxena24, the SC held that the freedom of speech and
expression would be subjected to Article 19[2], 129, and 215. Though the courts do not like
assume the posture that they are above criticism and that their functioning needs to improvement.
[B.6] JUDGE MADE LAWS
In Keshavanada Bharti v State of Kerela (1973) which protected the Constitution & its basic
features & tenets against any possibility of encroachment by the Legislature. Constitution is not
in a State of being, but becoming, a prophetic comment made by S.N. Dwivedi J. in the same
case. Maneka Gandhi25 (1978), where the meaning of life & liberty was expanded & subjected
to not merely any procedure by law, but by the procedure established by law which means the
due process of law which should be just, fair, reasonable & not arbitrary. S.P. Gupta26 (1982),
where the rule of locus standi was stretched & two new standings were propounded viz., the
Representative Standing & the Citizens Standing.
All of these are the classic examples of the judicial law making. have the Courts done anything
wrong by legislating for the welfare of the society keeping in mind the ethos of the constitution
where there was no legislation put in place by the legislatures competent to legislate. Answer is
No, they haven’t done anything wrong. The pleadings by Sequoia in within the legal preview of
23
C.K Daphtary v O.P Gupta, AIR 1971 SC 1132
24
AIR 1996 SC 2481
25
1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR 2762
26
1981 SUPP SCC 87
24 | P a g e
the laws of Praakrit and the arrest of Sequoia amounts to iillegal detention by the state of
Praakrit.
[C] WHETHER OR NOT THE KIKI NEWS CHANNEL HAS A CONSIDERABLE

IMPACT IN PROVIDING FAIR TRIAL TO SEQUOIA AND JUSTICE AMAR
SHERGILL?
The right of fair trial has not been correctly provided to respondents. It is submitted before this
hon'ble supreme court that Sequoia has not been provided right to fair trial.
[C.1] MEANING OF FAIR TRIAL
Articles 10 of the UDHR declares that everyone entitle in full equality to a fair and public
hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his legal rights and
obligation and of any c27riminal charges against him. Articles 14(1) of the international
covenants on civil and political rights provide that all people shall be equal before the court and
tribunals.The Kiki News Channel being representative of media in this particular case has
completely violated the norms and principles of providing trial to Sequoia .The media can be
commended for starting a trend where the media plays an active role in bringing the accused to
hook. The Kiki News Channel has shown the views of Justice Amar Shergill in the state of
Praakrit in such a way that it is prejudiced in regard to conviction of Sequovia. It completely
overlooks the vital gap between an accused and a convict keeping at stake the golden principles
of ‘presumption of innocence until proven guilty’ and ‘guilt beyond reasonable doubt’. The Apex
Court in ;
In Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab28,. The Court said that when serious allegations were
made against a former Minister of a State, except In cases of political revenge, amounting to
malice, it was for the State to entrust one or the other agency for the purpose of investigation into
the matter, including a central agency which had acquired specialisation in such cases.
[C.2] TRIAL BY MEDIA IS CONTEMPT OF COURT
28
2009 (1) SCC 441
25 | P a g e
The Contempt of Court Act defines contempt by identifying it as a civil and criminal. Criminal
contempt has further been divided into three types:. Scandalizing, Prejudicing Trial , Hindering
The Administration Of Justice.The Chief justice Gopal Rao OFAndhra Pradesh High Court in
the case of Y.V. Hanumantha Rao v. K.R. Pattabhiram and Anr29.,..Even if the person making
the comment honestly believes it to be true, still it is a contempt of Court if he prejudices the
truth before it is ascertained in the proceedings…But in so stating the law we must bear in mind
that there must appear to be 'a real and substantial danger of prejudice'.The Kiki News channel
had misused their Freedom of Speech and Expression and has committed a grave contempt of
court making prejudice in regard to detention of Sequoia.
[C.3] GAG ORDER
Moreover the Kiki News Channel has violated the gag order.The Kiki News Channel does not
have a right to report whatever they please just on the basis of police briefing causing prejudice
to the to the pending trial of the Seqovia. In Sahara Real Estate Corporation and other v.
Security Exchange Board Of India and Another30, the court said in view of the judgment of this
Court in A.K. Gopalan v. Noordeen31 , such statements which could be prohibited temporarily
would include statements in the media which would prejudice the right to a fair trial of a suspect
or accused under Article 21 from the time when the criminal proceedings in a subordinate court
are imminent or where suspect is arrested.
[C.4] RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN
In Sri Vasunathan vs The Registrar32, the Karnataka HC in it’s judgement and order has dealt
with the “right to be forgotten” on the internet in India. This post contains a background and
analysis of the case.The court stated that this approach was in line with the Western countries
where “Right to be forgotten” was recognised especially concerning sensitive issues such as
rape, modesty, reputation etc. Though this is not indicated substantially by way of reasoning, this
is presumed on the basis of statutory protections which are present in law.
29
AIR 1975 AP 30
30
2012 (12) SCC 610
31
[(1969) 2 SCC 734
32
2017 SCC KAR 424
26 | P a g e
The Kiki news channel has wrongly stated that Right To be Forgotten is not there in the state of
Praakrit. As concerned with the cited case law by Karnataka High Court Right to be Forgotten is
recognized in state of Praakrit and Judge made Laws has relevance in Praakritn Laws.
[D] WHETHER OR NOT THE STATE OF PRAAKRIT IS FOLLOWING

INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNISED PRINCIPLES, STANDARDS AND
COVENTIONS?
Praakrit is signatory to International Norms and principles. The true test of “good governance” is
and justice, besides ensuring effective safety in the country.\There are certain Rights which are to
be followed by Praakrit in regard to prisoners rights.
The medical officer has an important responsibility to ensure that proper health standards are
met. He or she can do this by regularly inspecting and advising the director of the prison on the
suitability of food, water, hygiene, cleanliness, sanitation, heating, lighting, ventilation, clothing,
bedding and opportunities for exercise.33 If the state of Praakrit is signatory to international
conventions that it is tne duty of the state to follow it but the state of Praakrit is completely in
violation of international norms and international principles and conventions. Sequoia has not
been provided any right in regard to prisioners rights and he was been segrated and secluded by
state of Praakrit in violation of theses norms. As stated in the our previous contention that that
state following their dangerous ideologies and have arrested Sequoia and Jutice Amar Shergill ,
the writ of Habeus Corpus being filed by the NGO Vasudev Kutumbkum resulted in release of
all the activists and the F.I.R was quashed by the Hon’ble High Court against Justice Amar
Shergill.
[D.1] APPEAL FILED BY THE STATE
33
27 | P a g e
The State of Sauramashtha has appealed to Supreme Court. As contended in the earlier
contentions , that the arrest of Seqovia and Justice Amar Shergill is contrary to proper procedure
and the facts of the case.
In the given case, the state of Praakrit had no evidence that speeches and published work of
Sequovia and Justice Amar Shergill are anti national and they hurt the sentiments of Army.
Since there was no incitement among public was there so no aeest should be there on suspicion
and having links with other terrorist.
The recent actions of the Trinamool Congress (TMC) government in West Bengal, led by the
redoubtable Mamata Banerjee, have been especially nefarious in this regard. West Bengal had
one of the most progressive laws related to political prisoners in India, viz. the West Bengal
Correctional Services Act, 1992, passed by the previous Left Front government, under pressure
from the long-standing movement on political prisoners in the state. Section 24 of this act
recognized the status of political prisoners in state prisons and accorded them some privileges.
The TMC came to power with promises of releasing the political prisoners imprisoned by the
previous regime, which made it garner a large number of votes in the Jangalmahal area from
where many people have been arrested and were languishing in jail, and also made a section of
civil society in West Bengal get on to the TMC bandwagon.
However, once it came to power, it obfuscated on this issue by making a so called review
committee, incorporating some of the members of civil society allied to it, and when the review
committee brought up the issue of recognition of political prisoners by asking political prisoners
to appeal to the courts for such recognition, the TMC government opposed this in the Supreme
Court. And even without waiting for the Supreme Court verdict it went ahead and amended
section 24, making it illegal for members of banned organizations, or someone who has not been
arrested from a “legal struggle” to have the status and rights of political prisoners. In effect, the
TMC government’s actions nullified the only law in India that recognized the formal status of
political prisoners.It is humbly submitted that together with charging people under the special
laws such as UAPA, the police routinely charges political prisoners with multiple criminal cases
related to murder, attempt to murder, rioting, conspiracy and use of arms and explosives etc. so
that they can be kept imprisoned for prolonged times and obtaining bail becomes very difficult.
The PIL filed by Kashi Garoor is maintainable as regards to treat all political prisoners in
28 | P a g e
accordance with the internationally recognized principles , standards and conventions.As stated
in the our previous contentions , the state of Praakrit violated the international norms to which is
signatory.
[D.2] LOCUS STANDI AND PIL
In 1981 Justice P. N. Bhagwati in .S. P. Gupta v. Union of India34 , articulated the concept of
PIL as follows, “Where a legal wrong or a legal injury is caused to a person or to a determinate
class of persons by reason of violation of any constitutional or legal right or any burden is
imposed in contravention of any constitutional or legal provision or without authority of law or
any such legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or
determinate class of persons by reasons of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or
economically disadvantaged position unable to approach the court for relief, any member of
public can maintain an application for an appropriate direction, order or writ in the High Court
under Article 226 and in case any breach of fundamental rights of such persons or determinate
class of persons, in this court under Article 32 seeking judicial redress for the legal wrong or
legal injury caused to such person or determinate class of persons.”
The rule of locus standi have been relaxed and a person acting bonafide and having sufficient
interest in the proceeding of Public Interest Litigation will alone have a locus standi and can
approach the court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory
provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique
consideration.
The Supreme Court in Indian Banks’ Association, Bombay and ors v. M/s Devkala Consultancy
Service and Ors.35, held that “In an appropriate case, where the petitioner might have moved a
court in her private interest and for redressal of the personal grievance, the court in furtherance
of Public Interest may treat it a necessity to enquire into the state of affairs of the subject of
litigation in the interest of justice. Thus a private interest case can also be treated as public
interest case”. It is submitted that the PIL filed by Mr. Kashi Garror is clearly maintainable in
regard to the given facts and circumstances.
34
1981 SUPP SCC 87
35
2004 (2) SCC 1
29 | P a g e
30 | P a g e
PRAYER
Wherefore in the lights of facts of the instant case , written pleadings & authorities cited and
arguments advanced, the Respondents i.e Sequoia , Justice Amar Shergill , NGO and Others
humbly prays before this Hon’ble Supreme Court to Adjudge & declare that-
1.The arrest of Sequoia amounts to illegal detention by the state. Sequoia has falsely been
implicated in the given case.
2.The PIL filed by Mr. Kashi Garoor has locus standi .There should be no question as to the
maintainability of PIL.
3.State has violated all norms and procedure in regards to arrest of Justice Amar Shergill And
Sequoia
4.That state of Praakrit violates all International norms in regard to treatment of Sequoia
Dangerous ideologies have been followed in contravention of International norms and principles
to which State of Praakrit is Signatory
31 | P a g e

TC b29.... Memorial For The Respondents

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

TC b29.... Memorial For The Respondents

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

B-29

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES, PANJAB UNIVERSITY

INTRA DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

STATE OF SAURAMASHTHA, KIKI NEWS AND OTHERS…………………………….APPELLANT

JUSTICE AMAR SHERGILL, SEQUOIA , NGO AND OTHERS………………………...RESPONDENTS

UNDER ARTICLE 32 AND 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

LIST OF ABBREVIATION .................................................................................................................... 4

STATEMENT OF FACTS ...................................................................................................................... 9

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ...................................................................................................... 10

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ........................................................................................................... 12

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ............................................................................................................... 15

[A] WHETHER OR NOT ARREST OF SEQUOIA AMOUNTS TO ILLEGAL DETENTION? ....... 15

[A.1] MEANING OF ILLEGAL DETENTION......................................................................................... 15

[A.3] PROCEDURE OF ARREST......................................................................................................... 16

[A.4] ADVOCACY AND INCITEMENT ................................................................................................ 17

[A.5] PASSIVE MEMBER DIFFERENT FROM AN ACTIVE MEMBER..................................................... 18

[A.6] ARTICLE 21 AND PRISONER’S RIGHTS ..................................................................................... 19

[A.7] INTERNATIONAL NORMS AND PRINCIPLES IN REGARD TO PRISONER’S RIGHT ....................... 20

[A.8] DUBIOUS CHARACTER OF NIA ................................................................................................ 20

[B.1] JUDICIAL OFFICER DEFINED .................................................................................................... 22

[B.2] FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION ................................................................................ 22

[B.3] ARREST OF THE JUDICIAL OFFICERS ....................................................................................... 23

[B.5] CONTEMPT OF THE COURT .................................................................................................... 24

[C.1] MEANING OF FAIR TRIAL....................................................................................................... 25

[C.2] TRIAL BY MEDIA IS CONTEMPT OF COURT ............................................................................. 25

[C.3] GAG ORDER ........................................................................................................................... 26

[D] WHETHER OR NOT THE STATE OF PRAAKRIT IS FOLLOWING INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNISED

[D.1] APPEAL FILED BY THE STATE .................................................................................................. 27

[D.2] LOCUS STANDI AND PIL ......................................................................................................... 29

1. CrLJ Criminal Law Journal

5. KLJ Kerela Law Journal

8. DLT Delhi Law Tribunal

10. Art. Article

11. i.e. That is

12. SUPP Supplement

13. AIR All India Reporter

14. Ltd. Limited

15. Ors. Others

16. Pvt. Private

17. SC Supreme Court

18. SCC Supreme Court Cases

19. SLP Special Leave Petition

22. NHRC National Human Rights Commission

23. Vs. Versus

 INDIAN COUNTER-TERRORISM LAW

SHRUTI BEDI ,INDIAN COUNTER TERRORISM LAW (Lexis Nexis Butterworths,New

 INDIAN PENAL CODE

 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

BATUKLAL (2006).THE LAW OF EVIDENCE, Central law Agency ALLAHABAD.

 Lexion law dictionary (1979), Ed. 3, West Group

 Judicial Dictionary, J. L.P. Singh & P.K. Majumdar, Ed. 2nd

 Judicial Dictionary, K.J. Aiyer, Ed. 15th 2010

 Black’s Law Dictionary, Ed.8th

 The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

 The Indian Penal Code, 1860.

 The Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967

 The Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

 Press Council Act, 1978

 Cable Television Networks Regulation Act, 1995

2. Indira Das v State of Assam 2011 3 SCC 380

3. Joginder Kumar v State of U.P. 1994 scc 4 260