7th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY
7th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022 UNIVERSITY OF
MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY
TEAM CODE:11
BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF WINDIA
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.: ___/2022
(IN THE MATTER OF WRIT PETITION)
SWAYAMSEVAK PARTY OF WINDIA …………………………………(PETITIONER)
Versus.
UNION OF WINDIA ……………………………………………………….(RESPONDENT)
WITH
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.: ___/2021
(IN THE MATTER OF WRIT PETITION)
ARRESTED PERSON………………………………………………………. (PETITIONER)
Versus.
UNION OF WINDIA ………………………………………………………..(RESPONDENT)
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS
COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF WINDIA
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF THE RESPONDENT
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
P a g e 1 | 23
7th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY
TABLE OF CONTENT
Contents
TABLE OF CONTENT ................................................................................................................2
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.......................................................................................................4
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................5
I. STATUTES REFERRED……………………………………………………………….…5
II. TABLE OF CASES: ..........................................................................................................5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION............................................................................................7
STATEMENT OF FACTS............................................................................................................8
ISSUES RAISED..........................................................................................................................10
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.................................................................................................11
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED .....................................................................................................12
1. THE WRIT PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THIS HON’BLE
COURT…………………………………………………………………………………….…....12
1.1. There has been no violation of fundamental rights………………………….………………..12
1.2 Petitioners have no Locus Standi to file writ petition under Article 32………………………..14
1.3 Alternative Remedy is not a bar ……………………………………….………………….…14
2. DESIGNTING THE SWYAMSEVAK PARTY OF WINDIA AS A TERRORIST
ENTITY, UNDER SECTION 35 OF UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES PREVENTION
ACT(UAPA) IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID……………………………………………16
2.1 Act of the state is constitutional and there was no violation of fundament right………….…...16
2.2 The activist violated Article 19 (1) (a) & 19(1)(b) …………………………………...……….17
2.3.Section 153A in the Indian Penal Code………………………………………………….……19
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
P a g e 2 | 23
7th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY
2.4 As they are charged under UAPA it is a matter of national security……………………….….19
2.5 No violation of Article 21 has taken place ……………………………………………………20
3. The Hon’ble SC cannot order to constitute a Special Investigation Team to probe the
present case……………………………………………………………………………………...21
3.1 The accused is not permitted to demand or dictate how an investigation should be
conducted………………………………………………………………………………………...21
3.2 The need of SIT……………………………………….……………………………………...21
PRAYER………………………………………………………………………………………...23
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
P a g e 3 | 23
7th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Hon’ble
Honourable
&
And
Ors.
Others
V.
Versus
Art.
Article
Sec.
Section
Govt.
Govt.
Dept.
Department
i.e.
That is
SCC
Supreme Court Cases
SC
Supreme Court
UAPA
Unlawful Activities Prevention Act
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
P a g e 4 | 23
7th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
I. STATUTES REFERRED:
1. The Constitution of Windia
2. Unlawful activities prevention act (UAPA)1967
3. The Indian Penal Code
II. TABLE OF CASES:
1. A.K. Gopalan V. The State of Madras 1950 AIR 27, 1950 SCR 88…………………………...18
2. A.V. Venkateshwaran v. R.S.Wadhwani, AIR 1961 SC 1906……………………………..…...14
3. Amish Devgan V. Union of India WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 160 …………….……19
4. Ashok Kumar Pandey v. The State of West Bengal, AIR 2004 SC 280…………………..……14
5. Asstt. Collector of Central Excise v. Jainson Hosiery,AIR 1979 SC 1889………………...….14
6. Babulal Parate V. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 1961 AIR 884, 1961 SCR (3) 423…….….18
7. Balwant Singh and Anr V. State of Punjab 1995 (1) SCR 411……………………………..…17
8. Centre for enviornment & food security v UOI &Ors WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.645...…22
9. Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1990) 4 SCC 449
AIR 1990 SC 2060 ……………………………………………………………………………….12
10. Debabrata Mishra & Ors V. Union of India & Ors W. P. 5357 (W) of 2015……….……….14
11. Debi Soren and Ors. V. The State 1954 CriLJ 758……………….………………………….13
12. Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala [(2008) 3 SCC 542]………………………………22
13. East India Commerclal Co., Ltd. V. The Collector of Customs 1962 AIR 1893, 1963 SCR (3)
338…………………………………….………………………………………………………….13
14. Francis Coralie Mullin V. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi & Ors. 1981 AIR
746, 1981 SCR (2) 516……………………………………………………………...……………20
15. Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf) Lal V. Union of India and Others 1960 AIR 554, 1960 SCR (2)
671………………………………………………………………………………………………..12
16. Hari Vishnu Kamath V. Syed Ahmad Ishaque and Others 1955 AIR 233, 1955 SCR
(1)1104…………………………………………………………………………………………...13
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
P a g e 5 | 23
7th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY
17. Javed & Ors. V. The State of Haryana & Ors. AIR 2003 SC 3057………………………….20
18. Kathi Raning v State of Saurashtra 1952 AIR 123, 1952 SCR 435………………...………..17
19. Kedar Nath Singh V. State of Bihar 962 AIR 955, 1962 SCR Supl. (2) 769…………………17
20. Moti Das & Ors. V. The State of Bihar AIR 1954 SC 657………………………………...…18
21. MRF Ltd. V. Inspector Kerala Government and Ors (1998)8 SCC 227………………….….13
22. Parmanand Katara V. Union of India & Ors. 1989 AIR 2039, 1989 SCR (3) 997…...……..20
23. Peoples Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India AIR 2004 SC 456………….…………..22
24. Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan V. Union of India, AIR 2014 SC 1591…………………….…….19
25. Ram Charan v Union of India AIR 1989 SC 549……………………….……………………20
26. Ramji Lal Modi V. The State Of U.P 1957 AIR 620, 1957 SCR 860…………………...……19
27. Romesh Thappar V. The State of Madras 1950 AIR 124, 1950 SCR 594……………………18
28. Romila Thapar v. UOI (2018)10 SCC 802 …………………………….……………………21
29. S. Govinda Menon V. The Union of India & Anr 1967 AIR 1274, 1967 SCR (2) 566….……13
30. S. Rangarajan Etc V. P. Jagjivan Ram 1989 SCR (2) 204, 1989 SCC (2) 574………..…….13
31. Sachidananda Pandey V. State of West Bengal & Ors 1987 AIR SCR (2) 223 1987
SCC (2) 295 JT 1987 (1)425 1987 SCALE (1)311………………………………...…………….21
32. Santhosh Netto V. State Police Chief & Anr. WP (C) No. 17327 of 2018……………...……22
33. Santokh Singh V. Delhi Administration 1973 AIR 1091, 1973 SCR (3) 533……………...…13
34. Satyanarayana Sinha V. M/S S. Lal and Company (Pvt.) Ltd 1973 AIR 2720, 1974 SCR..…14
35. Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting V. Cricket Association of Bengal &
Anr. AIR 1236, 1995 SCC (2)161………………………………………………………...…….18
36. Subramanian Swamy V. Union of India, Min. Of Law NO. 184………………………….….13
37. Sunil Batra V. Delhi Administration 1980 AIR 1579, 1980 SCR (2) 557……………………20
38. Superintendent, Central Prison V. Ram Manohar Lohia 1960 SCR (2) 821………….……..13
39. Tin Plate Co. Of India Ltd V. State of Bihar and Ors Appeal (civil) 1782 of 199……….…..15
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
P a g e 6 | 23
7th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Petitioner has filed this writ Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for
the violation of fundamental rights enumerated part – III of the Constitution.
The Respondent maintains that no violation of rights has taken place.
Therefore, this Hon’ble Court need not entertain its jurisdiction in this writ petition.
The Respondent would like to humbly submit that this Public Interest Litigation for the appeal is
not maintainable
Article 32 of the Constitution of India which reads as follows: “32. Remedies for enforcement
of rights conferred by this Part(1) The right to move the Hon’ble SC by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights
conferred by this part is guaranteed.
(2) The Hon’ble SC shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the
nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be
appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.
It is Humbly submitted that; the respondent has appeared before this Hon’ble Court in
response to the notice sent to respondent with regard to the writ petition filed by the
petitioner under article of the constitution of India.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
P a g e 7 | 23
7th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The Republic of Windia is country, had attained Independence in 1947. The Constitution of
Windia, which includes important provisions on fundamental rights, was adopted and enacted by
the Constituent Assembly of Windia on January 26, 1950. Prominence was put on civil and
political rights. These rights were included as enforceable rights under Part-III of the Constitution
as "Fundamental Rights".
2. The country of Windia is a multi-lingual country and is home to several religions and
communities. It consists of 28 States and 8 UT, with. The population of Saurashtra which is a state
of Windia such that there are 70% Naratha, 20% Bahar people and the remaining population
belongs to various other.
3. On 27th January 1822, a battle took place in Saurashtra. The battle plays an importance, in the
history of Bahar community as they had defeated their oppressors. The battle has since perceived
as a ‘symbol of pride’. Now, every year it is celebrated by the Bahar community. In Saurashtra,
the Bahar community and other backward classes organize the "Bahar Day" at Raibag village on
January 27.
4. The 200th anniversary of the battle was in 2022. Therefore, to on January 27 2022, a conference
was held in the Raibag region of Saurashtra named Rivelrida Sammelan. There was a more
extensive gathering at the event in contrast to preceding years. At the conference, provocative
speeches were made by some people due to which violent altercations occurred between Bahar
and Naratha group, leading to the death of some individuals and injuries to many others.
5. After this, a First Information Report (FIR) was filed in connection with the above-mentioned
incident. Investigation was conducted & police affirmed the compliant. The complainants testified
that the activists delivered speeches which were false, which evoked scorn between the two groups.
The Saurashtra Police arrested and conducted raids at several activists on mere suspicion and
seized many evidence, and the reason for their arrest was not communicated.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
P a g e 8 | 23
7th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY
6. The affidavit submitted by police stated that the material retrieved during investigation from the
evidence of the accused persons implicated them as active members of the ‘Swayamsevak Party
of Windia’ and reflected a design to be involved in the commission of offences having the potential
to destabilize the country. Following that, the Central Govt., exercising its powers under Section
35 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, (UAPA) declared the Swayamsevak Party
of Windia as a ‘terrorist organization’.
7. After the Swayamsevak Party of Windia was declared as terrorist organization they approached
the Apex Court challenging the constitutional validity of Section 35 of the UAPA on the grounds
that it violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Art. 14, 19 and 21 of the Indian
Constitution.
8. Arrested activists complained that they are being persecuted for their opinions, and their voices
are being silenced through criminal Prosecution. The State clarified that the accused were not
detained because of their differing ideas. The arrested persons have also approached the Hon’ble
Supreme Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution of Windia, demanding that a Special Investigation
Team (SIT) be constituted to probe the present case on the ground that the investigation is being
conducted in a malicious manner.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
P a g e 9 | 23
7th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY
ISSUES
1. IS THE PRESENT WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION
OF WINDIA MAINRAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF
WINDIA?
2. IS DEIGNATING THE SWAYAMSEVAKPARTY OF WINDIA AS A TERRORIST
ENTITY, UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY PREVENTION ACT
(UAPA), CONSTITUIONALLY VALID?
3. CAN THE SUPREME COURT ORDER THE CONSTITUTION OF A SPECIAL
INVESTIGATION TEAM (SIT) TO PROBE THE PRESENT CASE?
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
P a g e 10 | 23
7th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION FILED IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE
SC OF WINDIA?
Counsel on behalf of the respondent humbly submits that only in cases where a fundamental right
has been violated can a petition be filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court
has a responsibility to uphold fundamental rights, but it also has a responsibility to ensure that the
weapon of Article 32 is not abused; which can cause a backlog of cases in the Supreme Court,
which keeps other honest violations of a fundamental right unresolved. The Hon’ble SC has a
responsibility to uphold fundamental rights, but it also has a responsibility to ensure that the
weapon of Article 32 is not abused; which can cause a backlog of cases in the Hon’ble SC, which
keeps other honest violations of a fundamental right unresolved. The alternative remedy has also
not been shown to be ineffective.
2. IS DESIGNATING THE SWAYAMSEVAK PARTY OF WINDIA AS A TERRORIST
ENTITY, UNDER SEC. 35 OF THE UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES PREVENTION ACT
(UAPA), CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?
Counsel on behalf of the respondent most humbly submits that, the accused have abused their basic
liberties. It is important to keep in mind that while fundamental rights are important, they are also
restrictive in nature. The accused broke Article 14 as well as Article 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), and 21.
The decision to make the arrest was solely based on the situation that existed at the time. Each
activist had a great opportunity to stir up the crowd. This issue consequently became a matter of
national security and must not be delayed. They were also charged with doing harm to public
property. Through their actions, the activists have encouraged terrorism. As a result, it is valid to
classify The Swayamsevak Party of Windia as a terrorist organization under Section 35 of the
Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).
3. CAN THE SUPREME COURT ORDER THE CONSTITUTION OF A SPECIAL
INVESTIGATION TEAM (SIT) TO PROBE THE PRESENT CASE?
Counsel on behalf of the respondent most humbly submits that, there is no need to constitute a
Special Investigation Team (SIT), as these teams are only formed when the existing investigation
team has proven to be unfit for duty or has performed poorly. Such a verdict has not yet been made.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
P a g e 11 | 23
7th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
THE WRIT PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE SC
The counsel on behalf of the respondent contends that no fundamental right has been violated in
the current instance. Under Article 32, a petition may be submitted only when the fundamental
right is disregarded in the constitution. Additionally, the alternate remedy has not yet been used
up. The Writ Petition cannot therefore be maintained. The Hon’ble SC has a responsibility to
uphold fundamental rights, but it also has a responsibility to make sure that this tool provided by
Article 32 is not being abused by blocking the Hon’ble SC from hearing cases involving other real
abuses of fundamental rights. 1
1.1. There has been no violation of fundamental rights
We have certain essential rights as Indian citizens. Part III of the Indian Constitution establishes
fundamental rights. We are endowed with these essential rights from the moment of our birth. No
one or the Govt. can take that away from us. There are 6 Fundamental rights in total, out of which
Article 19 (1)(a) provides with Freedom of Speech & Expression.
1.1.1. Any democracy must have free expression as a fundamental component. The right to
freedom of speech and expression grants the ability to voice one's opinions in any setting without
fear. However, Article 19 contains reasonable restrictions that are in the public's best interest2.
Freedom of speech and expression is also restricted for not permitting anyone to challenge
sovereignty or to preach something which will result in threat to the integrity of the country.
1.
2.
Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1990) 4 SCC 449; AIR 1990 SC
2060
Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf) Lal ... V. Union of India and Others 1960 AIR 554, 1960 SCR (2) 671
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
P a g e 12 | 23
7th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY
1.1.2. Reasonable restrictions can be imposed under Clause 2 of Article 19 3 in the interest of
‘sovereignty and integrity of India’ or ‘public order. order’4. The principles for determining
reasonableness of the restrictions imposed under Article 19(2) have been summed up by the
Hon'ble SC in MRF Ltd. v. Inspector, Kerala Government.5
1.1.3 Therefore, Public disorder, or the reasonable anticipation or the likelihood of public disorder,
is thus the gist of the offence. The acts or words complained of must either incite to disorder, or
must be such as to satisfy reasonable men that is their intention or tendency. 6”
1.1.4. There must be a proper balance between the liberty guaranteed and social interest. interest 7.
As the activists themselves employed aggressive comments, no fundamental rights were violated
in this instance. Later, authorities alleged that certain members of a particular group who were
present at the event made inflammatory remarks that evoked the audience. The complainants
claimed that the activists gave speeches full of hatred, propagated false information, made
extremely disputed assertions, and inspired ominous slogans, songs, and road plays. The activists
themselves have grossly abused their rights. The maxim of equity, “He who comes to equity must
come with clean hands” is also contradictory with their acts. 2
1.1.5. 1.1.5 The enabling power in Article 19(2) to impose reasonable restrictions on the right
conferred by Article 19(1)(a) is intended to safeguard the interests of the State and the general
public 8. The enabling power in Article 19(2) to impose reasonable restrictions on the right
conferred by Article 19(1)(a) is intended to safeguard the interests of the State and the general
public. In the cases of East India Commercial Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs9, Hari Vishnu
Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaaqe10, and S. Govinda Menon V. The Union of India & Anr.11, it was
determined that the writ cannot be issued if a forbidden action has already occurred. The
respondents contend that no fundamental rights have been violated in this instance. Only in cases
3.Superintendent, Central Prison V. Ram Manohar Lohia 960 AIR 633, 1960 SCR (2) 821
4.Debi Soren and Ors. V. The State 1954 CriLJ 758
5. MRF Ltd. V. Inspector Kerala Government and Ors (1998)8 SCC 227
6. Santokh Singh V. Delhi Administration 1973 AIR 1091, 1973 SCR (3) 533
7 S. Rangarajan Etc V. P. Jagjivan Ram 1989 SCR (2) 204, 1989 SCC (2) 574
8 Subramanian Swamy V. Union of India, Min. Of Law WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 184 OF 2014
9 East India Commerclal Co., Ltd. ... V. The Collector of Customs 1962 AIR 1893, 1963 SCR (3) 338
10. Hari Vishnu Kamath V. Syed Ahmad Ishaque and Others 1955 AIR 233, 1955 SCR (1)1104
11.S. Govinda Menon V. The Union of India & Anr 1967 AIR 1274, 1967 SCR (2) 566
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
P a g e 13 | 23
7th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY
when a fundamental right has been violated may a petition be brought under Article 32 of the
constitution. The writ petition cannot therefore be maintained.
1.2 Petitioners have no Locus Standi to file writ petition under Article 32.
1.2.1 The Hon’ble SC in the landmark case Satyanarayana Sinha v. Lal & Co.12 has given itself
jurisdiction to determine whether any person or group has locus standi to file a petition. The
doctrine of locus standi, or standing, determines the competence of a plaintiff to assert the matter
of their complaint before the court. It means there must be violation of fundamental rights and a
genuine infraction of the law eliminated, but not for personal gain, private profit, political
purposes, or any other indirect consideration. An individual lacking locus standi is an incompetent
plaintiff. If this tool is not properly regulated and misuse is not prevented, it becomes a weapon in
unscrupulous hands to take revenge as well13 If this tool is not properly regulated and misuse is
not prevented, it becomes a weapon in unscrupulous hands to take revenge as well 13
1.2.2. As mentioned above their must not be any violation of fundamental right to access the power
of locus standi; however, the petitioners who have filed the writ petition 14 have extensively
misused their Fundamental rights by using speech which was full of hatred, spread fake history
and caused damage to public property. All this led to injuries to many people & even deaths of
some individual. 3
1.2.3. Therefore, it is respectfully pleaded that the petitioner lacks locus standi to bring the case,
and that any petition brought before the court where the petitioners themselves have abused their
rights should be dismissed and not maintainable.
1.3 The Alternative Remedy has not been exhausted.
1.3.1. It was established that when a plaintiff has access to an alternative remedy that is equally
effective, he should be obliged to pursue that remedy rather than relying on the Hon’ble SC's
unique authority to issue a prerogative writ 15. Unless there is a complete lack of jurisdiction in the
officer or authority to take an action, an alternative remedy is a bar16; however, the maintainability
12. Satyanarayana Sinha V. M/S S. Lal and Company (Pvt.) Ltd 1973 AIR 2720, 1974 SCR (1) 615
13. Ashok Kumar Pandey v. The State of West Bengal, AIR 2004 SC 280
14. Debabrata Mishra & Ors V. Union of India & Ors W. P. 5357 (W) of 2015
15. Asstt. Collector of Central Excise v. Jainson Hosiery,AIR 1979 SC 1889
16. A.V. Venkateshwaran v. R.S.Wadhwani, AIR 1961 SC 1906
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
P a g e 14 | 23
7th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY
of the filed writ petition is called into doubt by the presence of a competent authority to consider
this particular matter. 4
1.3.2. In Tin Plate Co. Of India Ltd. V. State of Bihar & Ors17., the court ruled that the petitioner
should file the case in the proper court if there is an alternative and equally effective remedy
available.
1.3.3. Because the writ lacks locus standi and an alternative remedy has not yet been explored,
the respondent respectfully submits that the writ petition is not maintainable and should not be
considered.
17. Tin Plate Co. Of India Ltd V. State of Bihar and Ors Appeal (civil) 1782 of 1997
18.Moot Prop P (2)
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
P a g e 15 | 23
7th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY
DESIGNATING THE SWAYAMSEVAK PARTY OF WINDIA AS A TERRORIST
ENTITY, UNDER SEC.35 OF THE UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES PREVENTION ACT
(UAPA), IS CONSTITUIONALY VALID.
The Counsel on behalf of the Respondent most humbly and respectfully submits that, The Act
UAPA aims at the effective prevention of unlawful activities associations in Windia. Unlawful
activity refers to any action taken by an individual or association intended to disrupt the territorial
integrity and sovereignty of Windia. 5
Sec 35 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 The Central Govt. may, by order, in the
Official Gazette, may add an organization in the Schedule; may add also an organization to the
Schedule, which is identified as a terrorist organization in a resolution adopted by the Security
Council under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, to combat international
terrorism; may remove an organization from the Schedule; may amend the Schedule in some other
way.18
The Central Govt. shall exercise its power under clause (a) of sub-section (1) in respect of an
organization only if it believes that it is involved in terrorism. For the purposes of sub-section (2),
an organization shall be deemed to be involved in terrorism if it, commits or participates in acts of
terrorism, or prepares for terrorism, or promotes or encourages terrorism, or is otherwise involved
in terrorism.19
2.1 Act of the state is constitutional and there was no violation of fundament right
2.1.1 An FIR was filed as several active members of Swayamsevak Party of Windia made
inflammatory statements throughout the event, which charged up the crowd causing great violence
and public property damage. The police are the eyewitnesses in this case because they were sent
to the significant celebration which marked the 200th anniversary of the battle.
2.1.2 The police conducted raids at homes of activists in several major cities and seized many
pieces of evidence, including laptops, pen drives, and documents. The material retrieved during
19.Moot Prop P (3)
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
P a g e 16 | 23
7th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY
investigation from the computers, laptops, pen drives, and memory cards of the accused persons
implicated them as active members of the ‘Swayamsevak Party of Windia’ and reflected a design
to be involved in the commission of offences having the potential to destabilize the country. 6
2.1.3 The accused were not detained because of their differing ideas or political ideology. The
arrest was not done with the motive to oppress different ideology. Instead, the investigation has
revealed their involvement in serious offences such as being active members of the Swayamsevak
Party of Windia, which has been designated as a terrorist organization, as well as their involvement
in the planning and preparation of large-scale violence and property destruction. In Kathi Raning
Rawat V. The State of Saurashtra20 object as mentioned in the Ordinance was to provide for
"public safety, public order and preservation of peace and tranquility in the State of Saurashtra.
The Hon’ble SC held that the Act was not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
2.1.4 The action was made in reaction to the situation that existed at the time. The activists were
detained without any errors. All of the arrested activists were in a good position to incite others.
Only those who incited the crowd and were the primary cause of the breakout of violence were
detained in the Sammelan and charged. Random bystanders were not jailed there.
Kedar Nath Singh V. State of Bihar21 & Balwant Singh & Bhupinder Singh V. State of Punjab22,
the decisions Justice Lokur referred to, made it plain that the sedition law could only be used when
there was incitement to violence, or if there was intention to create disorder.
2.2 The activist violated Article 19 (1) (a) & 19(1)(b).
2.2.1 A Windian citizen has the right to free speech and expression under Article 19 (1) (a),
although such rights are not absolute and are subject to restrictions under Article 19. (2). The
complainants reported that the activists presented malicious speeches, disseminated false history,
made extremely contested assertions, and incited terrifying slogans, sung-songs, and road-dramas,
eliciting derision from the two parties. Which were packed with cast-based comments that
wounded the feelings of the other party, resulting in violence. The activities carried out by the
20. Kathi Raning v State of Saurashtra 1952 AIR 123, 1952 SCR 435
21. Kedar Nath Singh V. State of Bihar 962 AIR 955, 1962 SCR Supl. (2) 769
22. Balwant Singh and Anr V. State of Punjab 1995 (1) SCR 411
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
P a g e 17 | 23
7th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY
members of Swayamsevak Party became unlawful. In the case of Moti Das v. State of Bihar23, it
was held that ‘an assembly, which was lawful to start with, became unlawful the moment one of
the members called on the others to assault the victim and his associates. 7
2.2.2 Article 19(2) According to this article, the Govt. may impose reasonable restrictions on
freedom of speech and expression in the interests of the state’s sovereignty and integrity 24, friendly
relations with other countries, public order, decency or morality, or contempt of court, defamation,
or incitement to commit a crime, or in the case of contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to
commit a crime. As it has become matter of national security because of speeches filled with
malice the riots could be seen in the whole country. A K Gopalan V. State of Madras25 Case: The
court stated that Article 19(1) has nothing to do with preventive or punitive detention and it is
outside the ambit of Article 19 (1). The court contended that the which protects the freedom of
citizens, does not apply to citizens whose freedom is restricted by law, and thus the question of
enforcing Article 19(1) does not arise.
2.2.3 In Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra26, the Hon’ble SC while observing that right ‘to
hold public meeting’ and to ‘take out public processions’ vests under Article 19 (1) (b) of the
Constitution of India, stated that: Public order has to be maintained in advance in order to ensure
it and, therefore, it is competent to a legislature to pass a law permitting an appropriate authority
to take anticipatory action or place anticipatory restrictions upon particular kinds of acts in an
emergency for the purpose of maintaining public order.” Hence, to put reasonable restriction over
the freedom to assemble granted under article 19 (1)(B)
2.2.4 The court noted that there are several levels of offences against "public order" in the case of
Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras27. Only severe or worsened forms of public disturbances
threaten state security. For instance, riot, insurrection, altercation, and unlawful assembly.
23. Moti Das & Ors. V. The State of Bihar AIR 1954 SC 657
24. Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting V. Cricket Association of Bengal & Anr. Citation: 1995 AIR
1236, 1995 SCC (2)161
25. A.K. Gopalan V. The State of Madras 1950 AIR 27, 1950 SCR 88
26. Babulal Parate V. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 1961 AIR 884, 1961 SCR (3) 423
27. Romesh Thappar V. The State of Madras 1950 AIR 124, 1950 SCR 594
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
P a g e 18 | 23
7th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY
2.3. Section 153A in The Indian Penal Code (IPC)
2.3.1 The Hon’ble SC clarified the parameters as well as the necessary elements to create an
offence under Section 153A IPC. The Court held that the term "public order" must be read in
conjunction with the term "public tranquility" when interpreting the meaning of the term "public
tranquility" under Section 153A IPC .28
2.3.2 The court decides to punish just those actions that are done with ill intent and not for all
actions29. In the present case, the activists deliberately made statements that incited the crowd
leading to riots.
2.4 As they are charged under UAPA it is a matter of national security.
2.4.1 The FIR filed was in the connection with the Raibag incident and the investigation revealed
that all the claim was in mala fide nature. In the case of Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of
India30, the Hon’ble SC dealt with a case where the petitioners prayed that the State should take
peremptory action against makers of hate speech.
2.42 The accused are arrested and booked under UAPA as a result of their unlawful act. They have
committed and engaged in those illegal and treasonous acts for their own objectives. The UAPA
protects the country from these accused activists who are a threat to national security. If they had
not been apprehended immediately after the incident, they could have influenced many more
people, resulting in large-scale destruction. 8
28 Amish Devgan V. Union Of India WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 160 OF 2020
29. Ramji Lal Modi V. The State Of U.P 1957 AIR 620, 1957 SCR 860
30. Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan V. Union of India, AIR 2014 SC 1591
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
P a g e 19 | 23
7th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY
2.5 No violation of Article 21 has taken place.
2.5.1 The test of individual liberty cannot be emphasized to the point of putting an end to goals of
social and economic harmony, national advancement, etc 31. In the present case, the activists'
speeches outraged people, which shattered the peace of the state. Right to life also includes right
to live in peace32. The protesters violated the Sammelan participants' civil liberties by interfering
with their ability to live in peace, they had damaged public property, which resulted in numerous
people being injured as well as deaths, mandating their arrest. 9
2.5.2 The Hon’ble SC has very specifically said that the protection of life is of the utmost
importance in Parmananda Katar v. Union of India33. The activists' actions had also caused a
number of others to suffer injuries and even face death. Therefore, if the police hadn't detained
them, there could have been a considerable measure extra casualty. Any mechanism used to revoke
someone's right to life or liberty must be reasonable, fair, and just not illogical or unfair 34. In the
case of Ramcharan v UOI35, the S.C. held that to constitute ‘deprived’ there must be a direct and
tangible act that threatens the feelings of life of a person or member of the community. The police
departments arrest was completely reasonable and fair as the acts done by activists threatened the
life of the society at large.
31. Javed & Ors. V. The State of Haryana & Ors. AIR 2003 SC 3057
32. Sunil Batra V. Delhi Administration 1980 AIR 1579, 1980 SCR (2) 557
33. Parmanand Katara V. Union of India & Ors. 1989 AIR 2039, 1989 SCR (3) 997
34. Francis Coralie Mullin V. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi & Ors. 1981 AIR 746, 1981 SCR (2) 516
35. Ram Charan v Union Of India AIR 1989 SC 549
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
P a g e 20 | 23
7th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY
THE HO’BLE SC CANNOT ORDER TO CONSTITU A SPECIAL
INVESTIGATION TEAM TO PROBE THE PRESENT CASE
The Counsel on behalf of the Respondent most humbly and respectfully submits that SIT is hired
when it is discovered that the current agency is not in a position to conduct a fair investigation in
the particular instance or if the case is brought against high profile individuals who may impact
the investigation of the current agency. 10
3.1 The accused is not permitted to demand or dictate how an investigation should be
conducted.
3.1.1 The petitioner demand’s Hon’ble SC to appoint SIT for the investigation. The accused cannot
demand or say on how should an investigation should take place. The court determined in Romila
Thapar v. UOI36 that the inquiry process would not be carried out in accordance with the terms
and conditions of the accused.
3.1.2 Although everybody wants justice to be served but no one has the right to instruct what mode
of investigation should be used to probe the case.37
3.2 The need of SIT
3.2.1 SIT is only established when the existing investigating agency is proven ineffective. In this
case, the Saurashtra Police conducted a thorough investigation without violating any laws or
fundamental rights, on schedule, and they found numerous significant facts. They also did a
fantastic job of managing the situation at the Raibag incident and establishing the allegation.
Therefore, we cannot conclude that the police department conducted a flawed investigation.
36. Romila Thapar v. UOI (2018)10 SCC 802
37. Sachidananda Pandey V. State of West Bengal & Ors 1987 AIR 1109 1987 SCR (2) 223 1987 SCC (2) 295 JT
1987 (1)425 1987 SCALE (1)311
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
P a g e 21 | 23
7th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY
3.2.2 When a case is brought before the court and the court determines that the current agencies
are unable to resolve the situation due to various factors like corruption, bias, a lack of resources,
ted-tape, etc., the court will employ a unit to look into the issue. Since the court has not yet ruled
that the investigation carried out by the police was improper in the current situation, it would be
incorrect to constitute the SIT based solely on the appellant's petition.
3.2.3 In Peoples Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India 38 the court held that providing
financial or verbal support to terrorist organizations is not illegal unless done so with the purpose
to violate the law. In this event, the activists' aims were to disturb the peace of the community.
Making an SIT in this situation would merely be a waste of resources, thus it wouldn't be able to
aid in cases where there is an actual need.
3.2.4. If the writ has been filed after the investigation. The Hon’ble court cannot direct the
entrustment of the investigation to an SIT39. Here, an investigation has already been conducted.
The Apex Court in the case of Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala in paragraph 50 of the
report has categorically held that the High Court in exercise of its whatsoever jurisdiction cannot
direct investigation by constituting a special investigation team.
3.2.5 The SIT, so constituted, shall be charged with the responsibilities and duties of investigation,
initiation of proceedings, and prosecution, whether in the context of appropriate criminal or civil
proceeding40. Since the investigation in this instance has already been completed, creating an SIT
will merely waste both human and material resources. There has been a comprehensive
investigation conducted by the police department and therefore no SIT should be formed, inter
alia, mentioned above.11
38. Peoples Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India AIR 2004 SC 456
39.Santhosh Netto V. State Police Chief & Anr. WP (C) No. 17327 of 2018
40. Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala [(2008) 3 SCC 542],
41. Centre for enviornment & food security v UOI &Ors WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.645 OF 2007
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
P a g e 22 | 23
7th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY
PRAYER
Wherefore, in light of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the
counsels for Respondents humbly pray before the Hon’ble SC that it may be pleased to adjudge
and declare that:
1. The present writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of Windia is not maintainable.
2. The designation of Swayamsevak Party of Windia as a terrorist entity, under Section 35 of the
Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), as constitutionally valid.
3. To not consider constituting a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate the present case.
AND/OR
Pass any other order, direction or relief that this hon’ble court may deem fit in the interests of
justice, equity and good conscience.
And for this act kindness, the Respondent as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.
Sd/Counsel on behalf of the Respondent
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
P a g e 23 | 23