MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DUMIL NADU
WRIT PETITION NO. XX OF 2024
MR. RAM
(PETITIONER)
v.
REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF DUMIL NADU
(RESPONDENT)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Abbreviations 3
Index of Authorities 4
•Table of Cases 4
•Websites 4
•Statutes 4
Statement of Jurisdiction 5
Statement of Facts 6
Issues 8
Summary of Arguments 9
Arguments Advanced 10
Prayer 18
2
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
& And
AIR All India Report
Anr. Another
E.g. Example
Hon‟ble Honorable
Ors. Others
r/w Read with
SLP Special leave petition
S./Sec. Section
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
St. State
u/s Under Section
v. Versus
3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
TABLE OF CASES:
1. Indian Case Laws
2. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1
3. Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1967 SC 1
4. R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 SCC 632
5. Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 221
6. Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India, (2016) 9 SCC 473
7. Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, (2002) 5 SCC 294
8. Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India, (2018) 10 SCC 639
9. X v. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1321
10. Sri Vasunathan v. Registrar General, Karnataka High Court, 2017 SCC OnLine
Kar 424
11. International Case Laws
12. Axel Springer AG v. Germany, (2012), European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)
13. Google Spain SL v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos, (2014),
European Court of Justice (ECJ)
14. A.G. v. Times Newspapers Ltd., (1974), House of Lords, UK
BOOKS & STATUTES:
1. The Constitution of India, 1950
2. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
3. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023
4. Indian Evidence Act, 1872
WEBSITES:
1. http://www.scconline.com
2. http://www.manupatrafast.com
3. http://www.findlaw.com
4. http://www.judis.nic.in
5. http://www.indiankanoon.com
4
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Petitioner humbly submits that this Hon’ble High Court of Dumil Nadu has jurisdiction to
entertain and adjudicate upon the present matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental
rights and other legal rights. Given that the petitioner seeks relief regarding the violation of
his fundamental right to privacy and reputation, this Hon’ble Court is vested with the
jurisdiction to determine and grant appropriate relief.
5
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The Petitioner, Mr. Ram, is a Bollywood actor who was accused of rape by a junior
artist during the shooting of his 25th film. The accusation led to an extensive legal
battle that resulted in his acquittal by both the Trial Court on 30.04.2024 and the High
Court on 30.10.2024 due to lack of sufficient evidence.
2. Following the acquittal, Mr. Ram’s name remained in the public domain through the
judicial records accessible on various online legal repositories such as Indian Kanoon
and High Court archives. His personal details, including his profession and place of
residence, were included in the judgment.
3. The Petitioner approached the Registrar of the High Court of Dumil Nadu, seeking the
redaction of his personally identifiable information from the judgment or,
alternatively, complete removal of the judgment from public access. The Registrar
denied his request, citing the principles of open justice, transparency, and the public’s
right to access judicial records.
4. Judicial records are considered public documents, and their accessibility is
fundamental to ensuring transparency in the judicial process. The publication of
judgments serves multiple purposes, including the establishment of legal precedents,
access to legal knowledge, and accountability in judicial decision-making. The High
Court’s judgment is a matter of public record and was delivered in an open court
proceeding, which is an essential component of the justice system.
5. The Respondent maintains that the right to privacy, although recognized under Article
21 of the Constitution, is not absolute and must be balanced against competing
interests, particularly transparency in judicial processes. The Supreme Court in
Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra (1967) established that court
proceedings are inherently public, and their documentation in legal archives is a
necessary component of ensuring an accountable judiciary.
6. The Respondent further asserts that the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023
(DPDP Act), under Section 8, provides exemptions for the processing of personal data
when required for compliance with laws or in the interest of legal transparency.
Judicial records fall within this exemption, and the publication of such records does
not constitute an unlawful invasion of privacy.
6
7. The Respondent argues that the principle of open justice ensures that individuals can
access court rulings, including both convictions and acquittals, which serve as critical
references for the legal community and the general public. Restricting access to
acquittal judgments could create a precedent leading to unnecessary censorship of
legal history and court decisions.
8. The refusal to redact the Petitioner’s details aligns with international legal principles
that emphasize the importance of transparency in judicial records. Courts worldwide,
including the European Court of Human Rights in Axel Springer AG v. Germany
(2012), have held that access to judicial records serves an essential function in
democratic societies. Any restrictions on such access must be justified by compelling
reasons, which the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate.
9. The Respondent emphasizes that the judiciary cannot selectively redact or erase
judicial decisions solely based on an individual’s preference. The Petitioner has not
provided substantial evidence demonstrating irreparable harm due to the public
availability of the judgment. Furthermore, mere acquittal does not negate the
necessity of retaining court records as part of the legal framework.
10. Given the above, the Respondent submits that the present Writ Petition should be
dismissed, as it lacks legal merit and contradicts the well-established principles of
judicial transparency and open access to court records.
7
ISSUES RAISED
1. Whether the non-removal of the Petitioner’s personally identifiable information from
the publicly accessible judgment violates his right to privacy under Article 21 of the
Indian Constitution and the provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act,
2023?
2. Whether the denial to redact the Petitioner’s personal details from the judgment
amounts to a violation of his right to reputation under Article 21 of the Constitution?
3. Whether the principle of open justice and transparency in judicial records should be
given precedence over an individual’s right to privacy and reputation?
8
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. No Violation of Right to Privacy: Judicial records are part of public documents and
their publication serves the interest of justice. The judgment does not contain
excessive or unnecessary personal details beyond legal requirements.
2. No Violation of Right to Reputation: The acquittal does not create a defamatory
impression, as judicial findings are based on due process. Mere mention in a judgment
does not violate reputation.
3. Transparency and Open Justice Prevail: The principle of open courts ensures
public scrutiny and accountability in the judicial process, which is fundamental to
democracy.
9
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
I. NON-REMOVAL OF PETITIONER’S DETAILS DOES NOT VIOLATE ARTICLE
21 OR DPDP ACT, 2023
The petitioner contends that the publication of his personally identifiable information (PII),
including his name, profession, and place of residence, in a publicly available judicial
judgment violates his right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution and the Digital
Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act, 2023). However, it is submitted that the right
to privacy is not absolute and must be balanced against competing legal principles such as the
open courts doctrine and judicial transparency. The publication of judgments serves an
essential public function by ensuring accountability, upholding legal precedents, and
fostering confidence in the judicial system.
A. Right to Privacy is Not Absolute
The right to privacy was recognized as a fundamental right in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v.
Union of India [(2017) 10 SCC 1], where the Supreme Court held that privacy is an integral
part of Article 21. However, the Court also made it clear that privacy is not an absolute right
and can be restricted on grounds such as public interest, national security, and legal necessity.
Judicial records are part of the public domain, and their publication serves a legitimate aim of
maintaining transparency in legal proceedings.
The principle of open justice has been repeatedly upheld by courts in India, particularly in Naresh
Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1967 SC 1], where the Supreme Court held
that the right to open courts ensures public trust in the judicial process. An exception to this
rule is made only in specific cases, such as rape trials and cases involving minors, where
courts exercise discretion under Section 327(2) of the CrPC, 1973 to conduct in-camera
proceedings. The petitioner’s trial did not fall within such exceptions, and therefore, his name
being mentioned in the judgment does not violate his privacy rights.
B. Judicial Records and Open Access Doctrine
Judicial decisions are public records, and there is a strong presumption in favor of making them
accessible to the general public. The open access doctrine ensures that court judgments
remain in the public domain, allowing citizens, researchers, and legal professionals to refer to
them for legal education, precedent, and study.
The Supreme Court in R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu [(1994) 6 SCC 632] held that once a
matter enters the public record, including court proceedings, an individual cannot claim a
right to privacy over such information. The judgment in question is a public document and is
made available under the inherent principles of judicial transparency.
Additionally, the Supreme Court in X v. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh [2022
SCC OnLine SC 1321] refused a request to remove personal details from a judgment, stating
that open justice is fundamental to the rule of law and must not be diluted unless there
10
is an overriding necessity. If courts were to redact judgments based on privacy concerns, it
would set a dangerous precedent, leading to secrecy in judicial matters.
C. Judicial Records Do Not Fall Under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023
The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, primarily governs the collection, processing,
and disclosure of personal data by private and public entities, but it does not override legal
obligations for transparency in judicial records.
Section 8(f) of the DPDP Act, 2023 states that the processing of personal data is lawful when
it is necessary for compliance with any law currently in force. Since court judgments are
made publicly available in accordance with the principles of open justice and legal
transparency, they do not fall under the restrictions of the DPDP Act.
Judicial records are also not considered sensitive personal data under the Act, as they do not
involve personal identifiers used for commercial or private purposes but rather serve the
public function of legal accountability.
The Supreme Court in Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India [(2016) 9 SCC 473]
ruled that court judgments should be made available to the public to prevent legal abuses and
ensure transparency. This further supports the argument that judicial records are public
documents and do not fall within the restrictive provisions of the DPDP Act.
D. Balancing Transparency and Privacy – The Greater Public Interest
While privacy is a recognized right, it must be balanced against compelling state interests
such as judicial transparency, open access to law, and public confidence in the justice system.
Courts have consistently ruled that public interest in maintaining transparency in legal
proceedings outweighs individual privacy concerns.
International Precedent: The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Axel Springer AG
v. Germany (2012) ruled that publishing judicial decisions serves the public interest and
prevents secrecy in legal proceedings.
Indian Context: In Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms [(2002) 5 SCC
294], the Supreme Court ruled that the public has a right to know about matters of public
importance, including judicial proceedings. Judicial records serve as an important legal
reference and must not be censored for individual privacy concerns.
If the petitioner’s request is allowed, it could lead to a slippery slope where individuals seek
to remove legal records that do not favor them, thereby undermining judicial accountability
and legal precedent. Courts have held that public trust in the judicial process requires
transparency, and allowing individuals to selectively remove their names from judgments
would compromise the integrity of legal records.
11
E. Conclusion
The non-removal of the petitioner’s personally identifiable information does not violate
Article 21 of the Constitution or the DPDP Act, 2023. Judicial transparency is a fundamental
principle that ensures public trust, legal consistency, and accountability. Courts have
consistently ruled that judicial records are public documents and that privacy claims cannot
be used to erase legal history. The petitioner’s acquittal is recorded in the judgment, and there
is no legal basis for redacting or removing his name from the public domain. Allowing such
an exception would set a dangerous precedent, affecting the principles of open justice and
legal accessibility.
Thus, it is respectfully submitted that the denial of the petitioner’s request for removal or
redaction of his details from the judicial judgment is justified, as it is in consonance with the
principles of open courts, legal precedent, and the greater public interest.
II. NON-REDUCTION OF DETAILS DOES NOT VIOLATE RIGHT TO
REPUTATION
The petitioner argues that the continued presence of his personal details in a publicly
accessible judicial judgment harms his reputation, thereby violating his right to live with
dignity under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. However, it is respectfully submitted that
the right to reputation is not an absolute right and must be weighed against competing legal
principles, such as the public’s right to access judicial records, freedom of speech and
expression under Article 19(1)(a), and the necessity of transparency in the judicial process.
The inclusion of the petitioner’s personal details in the judgment does not constitute
defamation or unlawful harm to his reputation, as the judgment merely records judicial
findings. Therefore, the denial of redaction does not violate the petitioner’s right to
reputation.
A. Right to Reputation is Not Absolute
The Supreme Court has consistently held that while the right to reputation is an intrinsic part
of the right to life under Article 21, it is not an absolute right and must be balanced with other
fundamental rights, such as the right to information, open justice, and public access to
judicial records.
In Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India [(2016) 7 SCC 221], the Supreme Court held that
the right to reputation is subject to reasonable restrictions and cannot be elevated above
public interest and free speech.
The right to reputation cannot be interpreted as a right to suppress judicial records or
historical facts. The petitioner was an accused in a legal proceeding, and his name appearing
in the judgment is an objective fact, not an opinion that could tarnish his reputation unjustly.
Additionally, the right to reputation must be balanced against judicial transparency, as held in
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India [(2017) 10 SCC 1], where the Court
12
recognized privacy as a fundamental right but emphasized that reasonable restrictions can be
imposed when there is a legitimate state interest involved. Here, the need for maintaining
judicial transparency and accessibility outweighs the petitioner’s claim to reputation
protection.
B. Judicial Records Do Not Constitute Defamation or Unlawful Harm to Reputation
The petitioner’s claim for redaction suggests that the presence of his name in the judgment,
despite his acquittal, damages his reputation. However, this argument is flawed because
judicial records are factual and do not amount to defamation.
In R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu [(1994) 6 SCC 632], the Supreme Court clarified that
true statements forming part of public records, including court judgments, do not constitute
defamation. The judgment in question accurately reflects the petitioner’s legal history,
including his acquittal, and does not misrepresent facts in a manner that could damage his
reputation unlawfully.
Furthermore, in Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India [(2016) 9 SCC 473], the
Supreme Court held that court judgments should be made accessible to prevent
misinformation and misuse of legal provisions. Allowing redaction would create an avenue
for individuals to suppress parts of their legal history, which could lead to a distortion of facts
and public records.
Thus, the denial of redaction does not violate the petitioner’s right to reputation because the
judgment does not misrepresent him or portray him in a defamatory light. It is merely a legal
record of past proceedings, which is crucial for legal consistency and public awareness.
C. Open Access to Judicial Records Prevents Misuse of the Legal System
One of the fundamental principles of justice is transparency, which ensures that court
decisions are accessible for legal scrutiny, research, and public accountability. Judicial
records, including judgments, serve as historical documents that provide clarity on legal
precedents and individual cases.
The public’s right to information is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a), as held in
Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms [(2002) 5 SCC 294]. The judgment in
question, being part of the public domain, serves a legitimate public function.
Suppressing such judgments through redaction or removal would set a dangerous precedent,
allowing individuals to erase their legal history, thereby undermining judicial integrity and
accessibility.
If the petitioner’s request is granted, it could open the floodgates for numerous requests to
alter legal records, leading to a distorted legal system where judicial transparency is
compromised. The judiciary has repeatedly emphasized that the principle of open justice
outweighs personal discomfort caused by judicial disclosures.
D. Balancing the Right to Reputation with the Right to Information and Open Justice
13
The right to reputation must be balanced with the public’s right to access judicial records and the
principle of open justice. Courts have consistently ruled that judicial proceedings must
remain transparent to ensure that the judicial system is not misused.
In Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India [(2018) 10 SCC 639], the Supreme Court ruled
that open access to judicial records fosters public trust in the legal system and must be the
norm unless there are compelling reasons to withhold information.
The Karnataka High Court in Sri Vasunathan v. Registrar General, Karnataka High Court [2017
SCC OnLine Kar 424] recognized the right to be forgotten in matrimonial cases, but
reiterated that criminal records should remain accessible to ensure public trust in legal
proceedings.
The right to be forgotten has not been recognized as an absolute right in India, particularly in
cases involving criminal or judicial proceedings. Since the petitioner’s case involves a
criminal trial, even though he was acquitted, the public’s right to know about such
proceedings outweighs his personal concerns about reputation.
Furthermore, in Google Spain SL v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (2014), the
European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled in favor of the right to be forgotten in certain cases.
However, this principle has not been widely adopted in India, and Indian courts have leaned
towards transparency over suppression of judicial records.
E. Conclusion
The denial of redaction does not violate the petitioner’s right to reputation because judicial
records are public documents that serve a legal and historical function. The judgment does
not contain any false or defamatory statements; it merely records the fact that the petitioner
was accused and later acquitted. Courts have consistently ruled that legal records cannot be
altered or erased to suit individual concerns, as this would undermine judicial transparency
and public trust in the legal system.
The principle of open justice prevails over individual claims to reputation, as allowing redaction
would set a dangerous precedent where individuals seek to erase their legal past, thereby
distorting legal records and creating inconsistencies in judicial transparency. The public’s
right to access judicial records must take precedence over the petitioner’s subjective
reputational concerns.
Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that the Hon’ble Court uphold the denial of redaction, as it
is in accordance with the fundamental principles of judicial transparency, legal
accountability, and public interest.
III. TRANSPARENCY AND OPEN JUSTICE OUTWEIGH PRIVACY CONCERNS
IN JUDICIAL RECORDS
The petitioner seeks the redaction or removal of his personal details from a publicly available
judicial judgment, arguing that their presence in the judgment violates his right to privacy and
14
reputation. However, it is respectfully submitted that the principles of transparency and open
justice form the bedrock of the Indian legal system and must be given precedence over
individual concerns of privacy and reputation. The open courts doctrine, which mandates that
court proceedings and judgments remain accessible to the public, is a well-established
principle of law that promotes judicial accountability, public confidence, and legal research.
Restricting access to judicial records, unless in exceptional cases, would undermine public
trust in the judiciary and legal system.
Furthermore, the right to privacy and reputation, though fundamental, is not absolute and
must be balanced with other competing rights and interests, such as freedom of speech and
expression under Article 19(1)(a), public interest, and legal transparency. The Supreme Court
has consistently upheld the public’s right to access judicial records as an essential component
of democracy and the rule of law.
A. The Open Courts Doctrine and its Constitutional Foundation
The principle of open justice is a fundamental aspect of the Indian legal system and is rooted
in Articles 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and 21 (right to a fair trial and due
process) of the Constitution. The open courts doctrine ensures that judicial proceedings are
conducted in a transparent manner, allowing the public to scrutinize the justice delivery
system.
In Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1967 SC 1], the Supreme Court
held that open courts are a fundamental rule of the common law and necessary for the proper
administration of justice. The presumption in favor of public access ensures that the judiciary
remains accountable and prevents any miscarriage of justice. This principle was reaffirmed in
Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India [(2018) 10 SCC 639], where the Supreme Court
allowed live streaming of court proceedings, emphasizing that greater public access to
judicial decisions enhances confidence in the legal system.
Thus, unless there are exceptional circumstances warranting confidentiality (such as rape
cases or cases involving minors under Section 327(2) of the CrPC, 1973), court judgments
must remain publicly accessible. The petitioner’s case does not fall within such exceptions,
and therefore, his personal details appearing in a publicly available judgment is justified
under the principles of open justice.
B. Public Access to Judicial Records is a Fundamental Right Under Article 19(1)(a)
The public has a right to know about legal proceedings and judicial decisions, which is
protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
In Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms [(2002) 5 SCC 294], the Supreme
Court held that the right to information is an essential part of freedom of speech and
expression, and access to public records, including judicial decisions, enables citizens to
make informed decisions and strengthens democracy.
15
The Court in Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India [(2016) 9 SCC 473] directed
that FIRs should be uploaded on police websites for public access, reinforcing the idea that
transparency in legal matters is necessary to prevent the misuse of state power.
Applying this principle to the present case, the availability of court judgments in the public
domain is essential for the right to information and legal research. If judgments were redacted
or removed based on individual requests, it would lead to censorship of legal history and
create an inconsistent legal system where public access to judicial decisions depends on
subjective concerns rather than objective principles of law.
C. No Recognized ‘Right to Be Forgotten’ in India’s Judicial Context
The right to be forgotten, though discussed in various legal forums, is not yet a well-
established legal right in India, especially concerning judicial records.
In Sri Vasunathan v. Registrar General, Karnataka High Court [2017 SCC OnLine Kar 424],
the Karnataka High Court allowed redaction of personal details in a matrimonial dispute but
clarified that criminal records should remain accessible to the public for legal accountability.
In X v. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1321], the
Supreme Court refused to remove an individual’s name from a judgment, emphasizing that
open justice and public access to judicial records must be prioritized over personal
discomfort.
In Google Spain SL v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (2014), the European Court
of Justice (ECJ) recognized the right to be forgotten in the context of personal data
protection. However, this principle has not been widely adopted in India, and Indian courts
have taken a pro-transparency approach in matters concerning judicial records.
Thus, the petitioner cannot claim a ‘right to be forgotten’ to suppress public judicial records,
as this would be inconsistent with the principles of open courts, legal precedent, and public
interest.
D. Suppressing Judicial Records Would Set a Dangerous Precedent
If the petitioner’s request for redaction or removal of his personal details is granted, it could
open the floodgates for similar requests from individuals who wish to erase their legal history
to protect their reputation. This would seriously undermine the credibility of judicial records
and legal research.
Judicial records serve as precedents for future cases, and their accuracy and availability are
essential for the development of jurisprudence.
16
In A.G. v. Times Newspapers Ltd. (1974), the House of Lords ruled that open justice is
crucial to maintaining public confidence in the judiciary and that restricting public access to
judicial records should be the exception, not the rule.
If individuals are allowed to redact or remove their names from judgments after acquittal, it
could lead to historical distortion of judicial decisions, making it difficult for researchers,
lawyers, and the general public to rely on legal records.
Furthermore, public accountability of the judiciary depends on the availability of its
decisions. If judgments can be altered or removed based on individual privacy concerns, it
would set a precedent where judicial decisions become subjective and vulnerable to
manipulation.
E. Conclusion
The principles of transparency and open justice must take precedence over individual claims
to privacy and reputation in the context of judicial records. The petitioner’s personal details
appearing in a publicly available judgment do not violate his rights under Article 21, as the
judgment is a public document that serves legal, educational, and accountability purposes.
The public’s right to access judicial records under Article 19(1)(a) and the open courts
doctrine outweighs any subjective harm to the petitioner’s reputation. If the court allows
redaction or removal of judicial records based on individual preferences, it would undermine
legal transparency and create an inconsistent and unreliable legal system.
Thus, it is respectfully submitted that the denial of the petitioner’s request for redaction or
removal is justified, as it upholds the fundamental principles of open justice, legal
accountability, and public confidence in the judiciary. The respondent prays that this Hon’ble
Court dismiss the petition in favor of judicial transparency and the greater public interest.
17
PRAYER
In light of the foregoing submissions, the Respondent respectfully prays that this Hon’ble
Court may FIND and DECLARE that:
1. The non-removal of the petitioner’s personally identifiable information in the
publicly accessible judgment does not violate the right to privacy under Article 21
of the Indian Constitution or the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, as
judicial records are public documents governed by the principles of transparency and
open justice.
2. The denial of the petitioner’s request to redact personal details from the
judgment does not violate the right to reputation under Article 21, as judicial
records are accurate reflections of legal proceedings and do not amount to
defamation or wrongful harm.
3. The principles of transparency, open justice, and public access to judicial
records outweigh an individual’s right to privacy and reputation, ensuring
judicial accountability, legal precedent, and public trust in the justice system.
And for any other reliefs that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interests of justice.
Respectfully submitted,
Counsel for the Respondent
18
