BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT

IN THE MATTER OF

RAMESH AND ADISHAKTI .... PETITIONER

Vs.

UNION OF MAURYA .... RESPONDANT

FOR THE KIND ATTENTION OF THE HONOURABLE CHIEF

JUST IC E AND HIS COMPANION JU STI C ES OF THE SUPREME

COURT

SUBMITTED BY

PAYAL POTNIS

LLB III, ROLL NO LC2225195

 II

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .. III

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … . IX

STATEMENT OF FACTS… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … . X

STATEMENT OF ISSUES… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .... XIII

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … . XIV

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .. XV

PRAYER OF RELIEF… … .........… … … … … … ............................................ XXVI

MEMORANDUM OF RESPONDENT
 III

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

1. List of Abbreviations

1.UAPA: Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967

2.MNS: Mauryan Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

3.MPC: Mauryan Penal Code, 1860

4.NGO: Non-Governmental Organization

2. WEBSITES REFERRED
1. www.lexisnexisacademic.com
2. www.vakilno1.com
3. www.indiakanoon.org
4. www.manupatra.com
5. www.ncaer.org
6. www.wikipedia.org
7. www.oecd.org

9. www.uncsd2012.org
10.www.environmental-mainstreaming.org
11. www.britannica.com
12. www.internationalrivers.org
13.www.riverlinks.org
14.www.en.wikisource.org
15.www.thesouthasian.org
16. www.nrlp.iwmi.org
17.www.legalserviceindia.com
18. www.thehindu.com
19.www.catawbariverkeeper.org

MEMORANDUM OF RESPONDENT
 IV

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Maurya has jurisdiction to entertain this petition under Article 32 of
the Constitution of Maurya, as it involves questions of fundamental rights and the validity of
legislative provisions..

STATEMENT OF FACTS

-On February 1, 2024, a bomb exploded outside the Municipal Corporation in Taigo City, resulting in
15 deaths and 35 severe injuries.

- Ramesh and Rekha were apprehended in connection with the explosion.

- Ramesh was charged under Section 15 of the UAPA, while Rekha was charged under Section 113 of
the MNS.

- Ramesh filed a Writ Petition claiming that his arrest under UAPA was arbitrary and violated his
fundamental rights.

- The NGO Aadishakti filed a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the constitutional validity of
the powers granted to the Superintendent of Police under Section 113 of the MNS.

MEMORANDUM OF RESPONDENT
 XV

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1.Whether the arrest of Ramesh under the UAPA is arbitrary and violates his fundamental rights under the
Mauryan Constitution.

2.Whether the powers conferred to the Superintendent of Police under Section 113 of MNS are
constitutionally valid.

MEMORANDUM OF RESPONDENT
 XVI

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

A. Maintainability of the Petitions

Ramesh’s Petition:
The State may argue that UAPA is a special law enacted to address terrorism, and hence, Ramesh’s
apprehension is justified given the gravity of the offense.
The petition could be deemed premature as Ramesh has not exhausted alternative legal remedies.

Aadishakti’s Petition:
The State may contend that Aadishakti lacks locus standi as the specific case concerns individual rights
rather than a collective grievance.
The petition could be dismissed if it is viewed as seeking to challenge individual charges rather than a
genuine public interest concern.

B. Constitutional Validity of Section 113 of MNS

State’s Argument:

The powers granted under Section 113 are necessary for effective law enforcement and to address the
urgency of terrorism-related offenses.
The State may argue that the section includes necessary checks and balances, and is thus not arbitrary.
Courts generally afford wide discretion to the legislature in matters of public safety and order

MEMORANDUM OF RESPONDENT
 XVIII

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE:

1. The Arrest of Ramesh under Section 15 of UAPA is Legal and Constitutionally Valid:*

- *A. Objective of UAPA:*

The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, was enacted to prevent and deal with terrorism in
Maurya. It was passed in the national interest, to curb activities that threaten the unity and sovereignty of
the country. Section 15 of the UAPA, which deals with "terrorist acts," provides for the prosecution of
individuals involved in such activities, with the intent to prevent any acts of terror and punish those
responsible. Ramesh’s arrest under this section is justified, given the gravity of the attack and the
evidence available at the time of his apprehension.

- *B. Lawful Procedure Followed:*

The Mauryan police, acting within the scope of the UAPA, followed due process in arresting Ramesh.
The investigative authorities relied on reasonable grounds, prima facie evidence, and due legal
procedures before filing the charges. It is not a violation of his fundamental rights, as the arrest is in line
with the safeguards and procedural requirements laid down in the UAPA and the Mauryan Constitution.

- *C. Fundamental Rights vs National Security:*

While Ramesh may claim violation of his fundamental rights under the Mauryan Constitution, it is a
settled principle that individual rights can be curtailed when it comes to national security. Terrorist acts
threaten the lives of citizens and the integrity of the nation. Under Article 19 of the Mauryan
Constitution, the right to freedom can be reasonably restricted in the interests of national security, public
order, and the prevention of crime..

MEMORANDUM OF RESPONDENT
 XIX

2. Constitutional Validity of Section 113 of MNS:*

- *A. Purpose of MNS:*

The Mauryan Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, was enacted to address the shortcomings of the outdated Mauryan
Penal Code (MPC). Section 113 grants law enforcement agencies the authority to act swiftly and
decisively in cases involving public security and criminal conspiracies. The provision was included to
ensure law enforcement is empowered to deal with modern-day challenges.

- *B. Adequate Safeguards:*

Section 113 of MNS, which grants powers to the Superintendent of Police, is neither excessive nor
arbitrary. The section includes safeguards to ensure that the powers are exercised reasonably and within
the ambit of the law. Judicial oversight is available to prevent abuse of power, and the actions of law
enforcement under this section are subject to review by the courts.

- *C. No Violation of Constitutional Rights:*

Aadishakti’s claim that the powers conferred under Section 113 of MNS are excessive lacks merit. The
Mauryan Constitution allows reasonable restrictions on individual rights when it comes to public safety
and criminal investigations. Section 113 is a necessary tool to ensure effective law enforcement in
complex criminal cases, and its constitutionality stands firm under the principles of proportionality and
necessity.

MEMORANDUM OF RESPONDENT
 XX

Conclusion:

The Respondent respectfully submits that the petitions filed by Ramesh and Aadishakti should not be
considered maintainable by this Hon'ble Court. Ramesh's arrest under UAPA follows due legal process,
and Aadishakti's PIL lacks the necessary legal standing and evidence to substantiate its claims. Both
petitions should be dismissed, as the laws challenged are constitutionally valid and were enacted to
address legitimate public concerns like national security and modern law enforcement needs. The
following cases, among others, provide precedents supporting the Respondent's position:

1. *A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950 AIR 27)* – Upholding lawful arrests.

2. *ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976 SCR 172)* – National security as a valid ground for
restricting fundamental rights.

3. *S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981 Supp SCC 87)* – On locus standi in PIL cases.

4. *Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal (2004 3 SCC 349)* – Frivolous PILs.

5. *Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006 8 SCC 1)* – Legitimacy of law enforcement powers.

MEMORANDUM OF RESPONDENT
 XXIII

PRAYER

In light of the above arguments, it is respectfully submitted that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased
to:

1. Dismiss the Writ Petition filed by Ramesh, as his arrest under Section 15 of UAPA is lawful and
constitutionally valid.

2. Uphold the constitutional validity of Section 113 of the Mauryan Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. Reject the public interest litigation filed by the NGO Aadishakti, as the powers conferred under Section
113 of MNS are essential for maintaining public order and preventing crime, and do not violate
constitutional rights.

MEMORANDUM OF RESPONDENT