BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT, INDICA

IN THE MATTERS OF:

ADHIKAR MANCH (NGO) ...PETITIONER

V.

UNION OF INDICA RESPONDENT

WRIT PETITION

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT, INDICA

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDICA,1950

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABREVIATIONS ……………………………………………………………………….3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………………………….4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………………………………………5

STATEMENT OF FACTS …………………………………………………………………………..6

ISSUES RAISED…………………………………………………………………………….7

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED …………………………………………………………….8

1. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE THIS COURT IS

MAINTAINABLE

2. WHETHER THIS IS Violation of Fundamental Rights

3 WHETHER Failure to Investigate Properly.

4 WHETHER THE ACT WAS COMMITED AS THE DEFENDANT’S EMOTIONS WERE SO

INTENSE THAT THEIR JUDGEMENT WAS IMPAIRED.

5 WAS THIS A PRE MEDIATED MURDER ?

PRAYER………………………………………………………………………………………….11

ii
 . LIST OFABREVIATIONS

% Percentage

& And

¶ Paragraph

BNS Bhartiya nyaya sanhita

Anr. Another

Cr.LJ CriminalLawJournal

BNSS Bhariya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita

F.I.R FirstInformationReport

Govt. Government

Hon‟ble Honourable

i.e. That is

Supreme court
SC

LR Law Report

Ltd. Limited

iii
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES

BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023

BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA,2023

BHARATIYA SAKSHYA ADHINIYAM,2023

Constitution of Indica, 1950

CASES
1. MAN SINGH & ORS VS STATE OF M.P.( 2019)
2. NARMADA Bai vs State of Gujarat & Ors (2011)
3. PUCL vs STATE OF MAHARASTRA ( 2014)

BOOKSANDARTICLES

● S.C. SARKAR, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE OF INDIA (EASTERN LAW HOUSE 2020)

● A.P. SINGH HUMAN RIGHTS LAW IN INDIA (OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, 2020) JOURNAL
OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE, VOLUME

LEGAL DATABASE

Manupatra
SCC Online
IndianKanoon
Live law

iv
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioners have approached the Hon‟ble SUPREME COURT of INDICA under Article 32
of the Constitution of Indica, 1950.1
. Constitution Article

Article 32 in Constitution of India

. 32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

. (1)The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement
of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
(2)The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including
writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warrant and certiorari,
whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this
Part.
(3)Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2),
Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its
jurisdiction ill or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).
(4)The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided
for by this Constitution.

IN THE LIGHT OF FOREGOING THIS HON’BLE COURT HAS THE NECESSARY

JURISDICTION TO INQUIRE INTO AND TRY THE OFFENCES ALLEGED AGAINST
THE RESPONDANT

v
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

I. Kavita was a journalist, on 17-01-2024 the men dragged the girl to a distant place and raped her
and she died .
II. On 24-01-2024, the Police presented the four accused in front of the local Magistrate and
requested for a 7 days remand for further investigation. On 03-02-2024, the Media flashed the
news that the four accused had been shot dead by the Police while they were being taken to the
Court
III. The families of the Four Accused also alleged that the police officers have have framed the
murder scene as they had threatened them when they went to the police station. The families
informed the reporters that the police officers angrily made the statement to the families that
the accused stand no chance of being saved from death as the entire Nation was against their
act.
IV. The Hon’ble High Court of Vaamnagar after hearing all the arguments of the case held “The
Police had no other option but to shoot the four accused failing to which they would have fled
and which would have triggered mass and widespread agitation throughout the Nation and the
Role of the Police would have been in question.”

vi
 ISSUES RAISED

1) WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE THIS COURT IS

MAINTAINABLE.

2) WHETHER THIS IS a Violation of Fundamental Rights of the victims.

3) WHETHER there was Failure to Investigate Properly.

4) WHETHER THE ACT WAS COMMITED because THE DEFENDANT’S

EMOTIONS WERE SO INTENSE THAT THEIR JUDGEMENT WAS IMPAIRED.

5) WAS THIS A PRE-MEDIATED Murder?

vii
 STATEMENT OF ARGUMENTS

1) WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE THIS COURT IS

MAINTAINABLE?

The Writ Petition made in furtherance to the Honorable High Court under Article 32 of
the Constitution of India as: firstly, the jurisdiction of High Court can always be
invoked; secondly, the Hon’ble SC is well within its rights to accept the writ petition
on application from the petitioners and thirdly, existence of Alternative Remedy is no
bar to file petition.

2) WHETHER THIS IS VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE

VICTIMS?

The right to The Right to Life and Personal Liberty is assured by the Indian
Constitution under Article 21.
In conclusion of PUCL vs State of Maharashtra (2014) the Supreme Court provided 16
guidelines to ensure transparency, accountability and proper investigation in cases of
police encounters. These guidelines were declared as binding law under Article 141 of
the Indian Constitution. The Court highlighted the importance of safeguarding
fundamental rights and ensuring that police officers are held accountable for unlawful
encounters.
The Supreme Court has ruled that extra-judicial killings are illegal and are equivalent
to state-sponsored terrorism

3) WHETHER Failure to Investigate Properly

The case People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) vs State of Maharashtra (2014)
centers around the investigation of police encounters in Mumbai from 1995 to 1997. In
this case, the Petitioner, PUCL filed three writ petitions questioning the legality of these
encounters. The Petitioner contended that it was in violation of Article 14 and Article
21 of the Constitution. The petition was dismissed by the Bombay High Court. Against

viii
the decision of the High Court, PUCL approached the Supreme Court which addressed
the issue of establishing a procedure for investigating police encounters.
The Raja Man Singh murder case was investigated by the Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI) and charges were filed under various sections of the Indian Penal
Code (IPC). The specific sections used are not publicly available information, but they
likely included sections related to murder, conspiracy, and other relevant offenses.

The case was tried in a special CBI court in Mathura, Uttar Pradesh. In 2020, the court
found 11 former policemen guilty of the murder of Raja Man Singh and his two
associates. The convicts were awarded life imprisonment

ix
 4) WHETHER THE ACT WAS COMMITED AS THE DEFENDANT’S
EMOTIONS WERE SO INTENSE THAT THEIR JUDGEMENT WAS
IMPAIRED.

The right of private defense is a defensive right, not a punitive one

But as per the actions, intention and statement we can see that the officials were influenced by
media and their own biases hence they exercised the right of private defense more than necessary
As they could cause hindrance in the escape by other means and not killing all four of the victims

6) WAS THIS A PRE MEDIATED HOMICIDE?

the police officers angrily made the statement to the families that
the accused stand no chance of being saved from death as the entire Nation was against their
act.
From this we can infer that the police officials were already aggravated and have created a
biased judgement of their own which was the basis of this encounter

x
 PRAYER

In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is humbly requested
that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare:

● The writ petition filed as maintainable,

● There should be an independent investigation into the case
● Whatever compensation deemed to be appropriate by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
should be provided to the family of the victims
● Strict disciplinary action shall be taken against the responsible police officers.

And pass any such order, other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and
Good Conscience.

And for this, the Petitioner as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.

COUNSELON BEHALFOF THE PETITIONER

11