INDRAJEET D.

KUCHEKAR
LLB 3RD YEAR / DIV A / ROLL NO. 158

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURYA

IN THE MATTER OF:

RAMESH (PETITIONER)
verses.
STATE OF MAURYA (RESPONDENT)

&

CIVIL WRIT PETITION

(PUBLIC INTEREST)

AADISHAKTI NGO (PETITIONER)

verses.
STATE OF MAURYA (RESPONDENT)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 1

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

SR.
PARTICULARS PAGE NO.
NO.

1. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 3

2. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 5

3. STATEMENT OF FACTS 6

4. STATEMENT OF ISSUES 7

5. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 8

6. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 9

7. PRAYER OF RELIEF 17

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 2

 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Art. Article

UAPA Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967

MNS Mauryan Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

MPS Mauryan Penal Code, 1860

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

SP Superintendent of Police

Hon’ble Honorable

AIR All India Report

Ors Others

SC Supreme Court

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 3

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

1. BOOKS REFERRED :
• INDIAN CONSTITUTION LAW 7TH EDITION LEXISNEXIS:
A. Constitution of the India
B. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal's the Indian Penal Code.

➢ Constitution of Maurya (pari materia with the Constitution of India)

➢ Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
➢ Mauryan Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

• Legislative and Executive Orders

Supreme Court of India Precedents

1. Shanti Kumar Vs. Home Insurance Co

2. CASE LAWS CITE

➢ Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597

➢ A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, 1950 SCR 88
➢ PUCL v. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 399

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 4

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Respondents submit that this Hon’ble Supreme Court has jurisdiction
under Article 32 of the Constitution of Maurya to adjudicate on matters
concerning the enforcement of fundamental rights. However, it is
respectfully submitted that the petitions filed by Ramesh and Aadishakti are
without merit.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 5

 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Maurya, a sovereign republic, enacted the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)

Act, 1967 (UAPA) to prevent terrorism.

2. The Mauryan Penal Code, 1860, was repealed at the end of 2023 and replaced
by the Mauryan Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (MNS), which came into effect on 1st
January 2024.

3. On 1st February 2024, a bomb blast occurred in a park near the Municipal
Corporation in Taigo City, resulting in the deaths of 15 people and injuries
to 35.

4. The police apprehended Ramesh under Section 15 of UAPA and Rekha under
Section 113 of the MNS.

5. Ramesh challenged his apprehension under UAPA in the Supreme Court,

claiming it was arbitrary and violative of his fundamental rights.

6. Aadishakti, an NGO, filed a public interest petition challenging the excessive

powers given to the police under Section 113 of MNS.

7. Both petitions are listed for a joint hearing before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 6

 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

I. Whether the petitions filed by Ramesh and Aadishakti are

maintainable?

II. Whether the powers conferred upon the police officers under Section
113 of the MNS are arbitrary and violative of the fundamental rights
under the Constitution of Maurya?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 7

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Maintainability of Petitions:

A. Ramesh’s petition is not maintainable and request to dismiss

as it seeks to infringe the
• National Security
• Sovereignty
• Unity and Integrity of Mauryan State

B. Aadishakti’s public interest petition is not maintainable as it

undermines broader concerns regarding the protection of

• National borders

• National Interests
• Prevention of Terrorist activities

2. Constitutional Validity of Section 113 of MNS:

1. The powers conferred under Section 113 of the MNS grant

essential powers to the police, necessary to deal with threats
to Sovereignty, Unity, Integrity of Mauryan State.

2. The provision are not arbitrary as it aims to cater adequate

safeguards against Terror activities.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 8

 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Issue 1: Whether the Petitions filed by Ramesh and Aadishakti are

maintainable?

1. Ramesh’s Petition
- Lawful Apprehension under UAPA: Ramesh’s apprehension under
UAPA is valid and in accordance with the law. Section 15 of UAPA deals
with terrorist activities, and Ramesh has been apprehended based on
substantial evidence linking him to the bomb blast.
- National Security Concerns: In Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of anti-terror laws such as
UAPA, emphasizing that national security concerns justify stricter
provisions.
- No Violation of Fundamental Rights: The apprehension of Ramesh under
UAPA does not violate his rights under Articles 14, 19, or 21, as the
procedure followed is fair, just, and reasonable, adhering to the principles
laid down in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras.

2. Aadishakti’s Public Interest Petition

- Lack of Locus Standi: Aadishakti’s petition should be dismissed as it lacks
locus standi. The petition is speculative and raises concerns that are abstract
rather than based on any direct violation of the rights of individuals.
- Public Interest Does Not Warrant Challenge: The Hon’ble Court in S.P.
Gupta v. Union of India held that PILs should be entertained when there is
a clear violation of public interest. In the present case, the petition
challenges a law that is enacted for public safety and national security.
- Preventive Nature of the Law: Section 113 of MNS is aimed at addressing
serious offenses and maintaining law and order. The challenge to it on
speculative grounds is not sufficient to invalidate the law.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 9

Issue II : Whether the powers given to the Police Officers under Section 113 of MNS
are arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights under the Constitution of
Maurya?

1. Reasonableness of Section 113 of MNS

- Adequate Safeguards: Section 113 of MNS does not grant unchecked
powers to the police.The provision is part of a structured legal framework
that ensures oversight and accountability. The actions of police officers are
subject to judicial scrutiny and departmental oversight.
- Comparative Jurisprudence: Similar provisions exist in other anti-terror
laws, including the UAPA, where law enforcement agencies are given
expanded powers to deal with serious threats.These powers have been
upheld by courts in cases like Union of India v. W.N. Chadha, where the
Supreme Court recognized the necessity of giving investigative agencies
greater authority in specific cases.

2. Compliance with Articles 14, 19, and 21

- Article 14 (Equality Before Law): The powers under Section 113 apply
uniformly and are not arbitrary in nature. They serve a legitimate purpose
of maintaining public order and addressing serious crimes, fulfilling the test
of reasonableness laid down in State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar.
- Article 19 (Freedom of Speech and Expression): Section 113 is not a tool
for suppressing freedom of expression but for dealing with serious criminal
activities. Any limitations imposed by the provision are reasonable
restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, as was held in Sakharam
Binder v. State of Maharashtra.
- Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty): The powers conferred under
Section 113 are exercised in accordance with the procedure established by
law, ensuring that no person is deprived of their liberty arbitrarily. The right
to life and liberty, as interpreted in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India,
includes protection from arbitrary state action. However, the procedure in
this case is lawful and follows the standards set by the Constitution and the
Mauryan Nyaya Sanhita.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 10

 PRAYER OF RELIEF

Wherefore, in light of the facts stated, issues raised, and arguments advanced,
it is most respectfully prayed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Maurya may
be pleased to:

1. Dismiss the petition filed by Ramesh, as his apprehension under UAPA

is valid and does not violate any fundamental rights.

2. Dismiss the public interest petition filed by Aadishakti, as it is

speculative and challenges a validly enacted law aimed at addressing
serious crimes and maintaining public order.

3. Uphold the constitutionality of Section 113 of the Mauryan Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023.

4. Pass any other order that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest
of justice and equity.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 11