MOOT and COURTROOM ETIQUETTE
Council seeks permission to approach the
Diaz……………. (much obliged)
Council seeks permission to address the bench
May it please the court, the council arguing on behalf of
respondent that is the Union of Vikas
The council Approaches under the Art 131 of Vikas
constitution.
"If the court is well aware of the facts may I proceed to the
issues:
FACTS
1. The Republic of Vikas, has achieved all-round socio-
economic progress during last 72 years of its
independence. It imparts constitutional supremacy and
not parliamentary supremacy.
2. in 2018, two attacks on the military jawans of Vikas by the
militant, which the scheme of law proves to be inefficient
since only organizations could be designated as terrorists.
3. On 3rd June 2019, the Ministry of Home Affairs, amended
the anti-terror law, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) act,
1967
A. to empower the Central Government to designate
individuals as terrorists, similar to the procedure in force
for terrorist organizations, if the person commits or
participates in acts of terrorism, cyber terrorism,
prepares for terrorism, promotes terrorism or is
otherwise involved in terrorism
B. providing the National Investigation Agency power to
investigate and seize property with mere permission
from Director General of National Investigation Agency,
vide the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment
Act, 2019
4. on 5th June 2019, a National Policy Commission meeting
was scheduled chaired by the Prime Minister to foster
Centre-State relations on policy discussions. where the
key agenda was the discussion on the newly amended
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2019.
5. On 7th July 2019, the Customs Department of Vikas
received information about smuggling of counterfeit
currencies worth VNR 10 lakhs by a passenger named Mr.
Nesamani from El Dorado, through the Mahindra Jhangir
Airport, Dhanjan. Upon receipt of the same, the officials-
initiated action, by tapping his mobile phone and tracking
it under surveillance. The officials arrested the passenger
and took him into custody for questioning.
6. Vid notification dated 10th July 2019, the central govt
referred the case to NIA for investigation, to bust the
racket of counterfeit currency market and allied activities
in Vikas.
7. Furtherance of the information provided by Mr.
Nesamani, The NIA Cyber cell began to intercept, monitor
and decrypt relevant information from the target
computer source, through its high standard monitoring
device, and the following incriminatory
material/information were retrieved on 11th July 2019. On
the same day Mr. Chiddu, resident of Dhanjan along with
several unknown accused was arrested by the NIA with
incriminatory evidence.
8. on 25th July 2019, Further, the NIA officials filed the
chargesheet against Mr. Nesamani and Mr. Chiddu before
the Special NIA Court. Where The accused challenged the
constitutionality of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
Amendment Act, 2019 and the impugned notification
designating him as a ‘terrorist’ before the Hon’ble High
Court of Dhanjan
9. On 1st September 2019, the central govt further filed
statement of objection to the combined petition before
the Hon’ble Supreme court bench.
10. The Registrar of the Supreme Court has listed the
matter before the Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble
Supreme Court on 15th September 2019 for final
arguments of all parties to the petition.
STATEMENT OF ISSUE
Whether the amendments to the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967, vide the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Amendment Act, 2019 violates Article 14 and 21
of the Constitution of Vikas?
Arguments:
“The council seeks permission to make arguments on
aforementioned mentioned issue ”
The amended anti-terror law, unlawful activities
(prevention) act,1967 has stated that
o Under section 35(2) of UA act……empowers the central
government to designate individual as terrorists, similar to
the procedure in force for terrorists’ organizations, if the
person commits or participates in acts of terrorism, cyber
terrorism, prepares for terrorism, promotes terrorism or is
otherwise involved in terrorism.
o Section 25(1) of UA act ………Provides the NIA power to
investigate and seize property with prior permission from
Director General of NIA, vide the unlawful activities
(prevention) amendment act, 2109.
Article 14
“the state shall not deny to any person equality before
the law or the equal protection of the laws within the
territory of India”
Principle It is well established that article 14, forbids class
legislation; it does not forbid reasonable classification for
the purposes of legislation.
In order, however, to pass the test of permissible
classification 2 conditions must be fulfilled namely,
a. That the classification must be founded on an
intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons
or things that are grouped together from others
left out of the group.
b. The differentia made must have rational relation to
the object sought to be achieved by the statute in
question.
From the principles enunciated above the decision of court
in the case SRI RAM KRISHNA DALMIA and SHRI JUSTICE
S.R. TEDOLKAR and others, 1958 established that-
The legislature is free to recognise degrees of harm and
may confine its restrictions to the cases where the need is
deemed to be the clearest.
The law maybe constitutional even though it relates to a
single individual if, on account of some special
circumstances or reasons applicable to him and not
applicable to others, that single individual maybe treated
as a class by himself.
Article 21
“no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty
except according to procedure established by law”
Principle
Article 21 secures two rights:
1) Right to life, and
2) Right to personal liberty.
The Article prohibits the deprivation of the above rights except according
to a procedure established by law
In the case People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India.
(AIR 1997 SC 568)
Phone tapping amounts to its violation unless it is permitted
under procedure established by law.
the Procedures established by law
1.There must be a law justifying interference with the
person’s life or personal liberty.
1. The law should be void law
(null and has no effect, such as statute, contract, or ruling)
2. The procedure laid down by the law should have been
strictly followed.
Tapping of telephone could be done only by the officer
specially authorised by the central/state Government on
their behalf and it could be done only under certain
conditions such as National Emergency in the interest of
public safety, security of State, public order etc…
In the case of A.K. Gopalan and State of Madras
(AIR 1950 SC 27)
Right to privacy can only be infringed where there is a
compelling state interest to do so:
A distinguished Judge of Supreme court lists out a potential
set of legitimate aims that may form the grounds of
reasonable restrictions on Article 21-
1. The means which are adopted by the legislature are
proportional to the object and needs sought to be
fulfilled by law.
2. Law in existence to justify an encroachment on privacy is
an express requirement of article 21.
3. Requirement of a need, in terms of a legitimate state aim,
ensure that the nature and content of the restriction fall
within zone of reasonableness mandated by A.14 which is
guarantee against arbitrary state action.
Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh
The Supreme Court took a more elaborate appraisal of the right to
privacy. In this case it was that
It cannot be said that surveillance by domiciliary visit would always
be an unreasonable restriction upon the right of privacy. It is only
persons who are suspected to be habitual criminals and those who
are determined to lead a criminal life that is subjected to
surveillance.
The court accepted a limited fundamental right to privacy as an
emanation from Arts.19(a), (d) and 21
Assuming that the fundamental rights explicitly guaranteed to a
citizen have penumbral zones and that the right to privacy is itself a
fundamental right that fundamental right must be subject to
restrictions on the basis of compelling public interest.”
Your lordship council believes that, the council has convinced the bench with
the facts and arguments and with the prior permission of bench the council
would like to move into prayer
(Much obliged)
Prayer
Wherefore in the light of issues raised, arguments advanced
and authorities cited, the respondent most humbly prays
before this Hon’ble court to declare and adjudge that-
This Hon’ble court may be pleased to declare that the
amendments to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
1967is within constitutional limits and do not violate article 14
and 21 of the Constitution of Vikas.
And to pass any order in favour of the Respondent which the
Hon’ble court may deem fit in the larger interest of the
Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.
For this act of kindness, the counsel shall remain duty bound
forever.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
