ARGUMENTS

I. THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE STUDENT PRIVACY FORUM (SPF) IS

NOT MAINTAINABLE UNDER ART.226
There are certain conditions that must be satisfied for a writ to be filed against a body1,
which includes status of ‘state’2 and infringement of fundamental rights3. In the present case
claimants submit that [A] The college does not come under the purview of ‘State’ under
Art.12. [B] There is no infringement of fundamental rights.

A. THE PRESIDENCY COLLEGE CANNOT BE BROUGHT UNDER THE

PURVIEW OF ART.12
For the applicability of fundamental rights, the Indian Constitution, under Art.12, defines the
term ‘State’. This definition encompasses: The Union and all state governments, the
parliament and all the state legislatures, and all local and other authorities; under the control
of the Govt. of India.
a) The college cannot be considered within the ambit of ‘Other authorities’
specified in Art.12.

1. The propositions developed in R.D Shetty v. International Airport Authority4, and

subsequently followed in Som prakash Rekhi v.Union of india,5 were culled out in the form
of tests in Ajay Hasia v.Khalid Mujib6 to determine as to when a corporation could be said
to be an instrumentality or agency of the government, i.e. ‘state’. Thus, to satisfy the
conditions of ‘state’:

1
See, Sohan Lal.v.Union of India, AIR 1957 SC 529:1957 SCR 738; Praga Tools Corporation.v.C.A
Imanual, (1969)1 SCC 585: AIR 1969 SC 1306; Rohtas Industries Ltd.v.Staff Union, (1976)2 SCC 82:
AIR SC 425; Anadi Mukta Sadguru Trust.v.V.R.Rudani, (1989)2 SCC 691: AIR 1989 SC 1607; Calcutta
Gas Company.v.State of West Bengal, AIR 1962 SC 1044; for detailed discussion see,
V.G.RAMACHANDRAN, LAW OF WRITS pp.66-109 (Vol 1, 2006).
2
Sohan Lal.v.Union of India, AIR 1957 SC 529:1957 SCR 738; Praga Tools Corporation.v.C.A Imanual,
(1969)1 SCC 585: AIR 1969 SC 1306.
3
Calcutta Gas Company.v.State of West Bengal, AIR 1962 SC 1044.
4
AIR 1979 SC 1628.
5
AIR 1981 SC 212 (para 36) [Bharat petroleum Corpn.].
6
AIR 1981 SC 487.
  the entire share capital of the corporation is to be held by the Govt.7,
 there must be existence of deep and pervasive state control over the management
and policies of the corporation8, particular to the body in question9,
 a monopoly status must be conferred upon the body by state10,
 the functions of the ‘state’ must be of public nature11,
 Also, if the Govt. has transferred one of its departments to the corporation12.

i) The college doesn’t satisfy the instrumentality tests formulated during

various Cases.

2. Satisfaction of individual factors, merely, cannot establish a body as ‘state’13 . The

Institute of Constitutional and Parliamentary Studies, New Delhi ( ICPS); a body
registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 enjoyed annual grants from the
Central govt. as its main source of income. There was also a deep and pervasive presence
of the Government14, but in Tekraj Vasandi v.Union of India15 the body was not considered

7
C.I.W.T.C.v.Broje Nath Ganguly, AIR 1986 SC 1571 (para 69).
8
See, Virendra Kumar Srivastava v.U.P Rajyakarmachari Klayan Nigam (2005)1 SCC 149;
M.D.,H.S.LDC v.Hari Om Enterprises, AIR 2009 SC 218; Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. v.Mysore paper Mills
Officer’s Assn., AIR 2002 SC 609.
9
Supra.n.2; State trading Corp v. CTO, AIR 1963 SC111; Sukhdev Singh.v.Bhagat Ram, AIR 1975 SC
1331; Mysore SRTC.v.Devraj, AIR 1976 SC 1027 (para 14); Sabhajit Tewary.v.Union Of India, AIR
1975 SC 1329; Surya v.B.S.E Board, AIR 1985 SC 941 (para 5).
10
Supra.n.3
11
Supra.n.3; Ramana.v.I.A.A.I, AIR 1979 SC 1628 (para 15-16); Gujarat S.E Corporation.v.Lotus Hotels,
AIR 1983 SC 848; Kaira.v.P & E Corporation, AIR 1984 SC 1361; Workman v.F.C.I, AIR 1985 SC 670
(para 117); Minhas v.Indian Statistical institute, AIR 1984 SC 363 (para 20).
12
U.P Warehousing Corporation.v.Vijay, AIR 1980 SC 840.
13
PROF.NARENDRA KUMAR, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA p.86-93 (8th ed., LexisNexis-
1962) (2014).
14
Tekraj Vasandi v.Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 469.
15
Ibid.
 as an ‘authority’. This decision has been followed in subsequent cases, like Chander
Khanna v.National Council of Educational Research & Training16. Additionally, the Board
of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), an autonomous body and enjoying the status of
monopoly didn’t satisfy the instrumentality tests17. Finally, even though in a welfare state
education may be interpreted as a public function, this alone is not sufficient grounds to
prove instrumentality. This view has been held in Federal Bank Ltd v.Sagar Thomas18.
Thus, even though the concept of instrumentality or agency of the government is to be
decided on the consideration of the relevant factors, it is to be noted that only in cases
where instrumentality is established as a result of the cumulative effect of above mentioned
factors would a body be an authority included in the term ‘state’ under Art.12.

3. In the instant case, the Presidency College is managed by a Registered Society19 with
negligible government representation as it is largely a private institution20. Such bodies
have not been held as ‘state’21.

4. By the process of analysis of the facts of the case we can construe that the Respondent has
not been created by the provisions of the act 22 itself23, making it a non-statutory body24.

16
AIR 1992 SC 746. See also, Ajay Hasia.v.Khalid Mujib, AIR 1981 SC 487; Minhas v.Indian Statistical
institute, AIR 1984 SC 363 (para 20).
17
Zee Telefilms.v.Union of India, 2005(1) SCALE 666.
18
AIR 2003 SC 4325.
19
See, Regulation no.1, UGC [Institutions Deemed to be Universities] Regulations, 2010
20
See UGC (Establishment of and maintenance of standards in private universities) Regulations, 2003: “a
private university is a university duly established through a state/central Act by a sponsoring body or third
party viz. a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.
21
DR.DURGA DAS BASU, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA (8th ed., LexisNexis-1988) (2009);
JUSTICE C.K.THAKKER & M.C.THAKKER, LECTURES ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, (4th ed.,
Eastern Book Company, 1980) (2008)
 Incidentally, only bye-laws created by municipal or statutory bodies have been included
within the wide connotation given to Art.13(3)25 of the Indian Constitution26. It can be
concluded, thus, that the Respondent enjoys no statutory powers. According to Devadas v.
K.E College27 a non-statutory body, exercising no statutory powers is not considered
‘state’28.

ii) The term ‘state’ cannot be extended to include every

autonomous body.

5. The status of ‘Deemed to be University’ conferred under the UGC Act, 1956, extends to a
status of autonomy29. Since the tests framed in Ajay Hasia case30 are not conclusive or
clinching, such that if a body fell within any one of them, it must, ex hypothesis, be
considered to be a state within the meaning of Art.12, it has been held that they shouldn’t

22
Karnataka Society Registration Act, 1972
23
See Zoroastrian Co-opt Housing Society Ltd.v.Dy.Registrar, AIR 2005 SC 2306; Gurucharan
Singh.v.Registrar, Coopt. Societies, A.P, 2005(7) SCALE 457. See also, Ajay Hasia.v.Khalid
Mujib, AIR 1981 SC 487.
24
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1424 (7th ed., 1990), ‘statutory’.
25
“Law” includes any ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage
having the force of law.
26
Tahir v. District Board AIR 1954 SC 630.
27
AIR 1964 Raj 6(11).
28
See also, Cf.Sham dasavi.v.Central Bank of India, (1952) SCR 391(394); K.K.Kochuni.v.State
of Madras, AIR 1979 SC 1377; Mahindra.v.State of U.P, AIR 1963 SC 1019.
29
Indian Institute of Space Science and Technology (IISST) Thiruvananthapuram Declared as
Deemed to be University, UNION HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT MINISTRY,
PRESS INFORMATION BUREAU (14 July, 2008).
30
Supra.n. 3
 be stretched so far as to bring in every autonomous body, which may have some nexus
with the government, within the sweep of the expression “other authorities”31
6. Even if question of minimal governance arises, it can be contended that said governance is
merely regulatory and supervisory, whether under statute or otherwise, and not particular
or pervasive to the extent that it would serve to make the body ‘state’32

b) No writ can be issued against a society or trust.

7. It is an authoritative stand that a society registered under the Societies Act cannot be
considered a state33.
8. This contention has been reiterated in following instances34, wherein, a registered society
running an educational institution was not considered a juristic person and therefore, a writ
could not be issued against them, even on basic that their activities have element of public
interest or public duty.
9. Additionally, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued against the governing council of the
Presidency College, as it is not the competent authority to answer any legal proceedings

31
See AIR India Statutory Corporation.v.United Labor Union, AIR 1997 SC 645. See also, Arun
Kumar.v.ICFAI University, AIR 2009(NOC) 2860
32
See Pradeep kumar.v.I.I.C.B, (2002)5 SCC 11 (emphasis added); Sukhdev Singh.v.Bhagat Ram, AIR
1975 SC 1331. See also, Mysore Paper Mills Ltd.v.Mysore Paper Mills Officers Association, AIR 2002
SC 609- Two judge bench of the Apex court held that the conclusion whether an independent entity
satisfied the test for instrumentality wasn’t whether it owed its origin to any particular statute or order, but
upon a combination of one or more of the relevant factors, and upon the essentiality and overwhelming
nature of such factors in identifying the real source of governing power, if need be, by piercing the
corporation veil of the entity concerned.
33
Supra.n.3; Minhas.v.Indian Statistical Institute, AIR 1984 SC 363 (para 20); Executive Committee of
Vaish Degree College v. Lakshmi Narain, AIR 1976 SC 888; Dipak Kumar Biswas v. Director of Public
Instruction & Ors, 1987 SCR (2) 572.
34
Biswajit Panda v.The Institute of Chartered Analysis of India university and Ors., AIR 2007 (NOC)
289(CAL.).
 against the college35. Further, it is clearly stated that no suit or legal proceedings shall lie
against the Institution deemed to be University36. This conclusively shows that there can be
no proceedings for a writ of mandamus in the name of the college or the Governing
Council of the college.
c) A writ of mandamus cannot be issued without demand and refusal
In S.I Syndicate.v.Union of India37, the Supreme court maintained that the order would not be
granted unless the claimant who’s rights where infringed made a distinct demand for the
enforcement of the right and this demand was met by a refusal on the part of the administrative
authority, which is ultimately substantiated with evidence. In the present case no such demand
has been said to be made on the part of the SFP to the college authorities and thus, in the absence
of such a demand and refusal, the writ of mandamus cannot be issued.

B. THERE IS NO INFRINGEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

10. Under Art.226, the esteemed High Court can issue writs or direction or orders in the nature
of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari38. It is further
maintained that said writs may be issued only after a decision that the aggrieved party has
a fundamental right and that it has been infringed39. The claimant submits that such an
infringement has not occurred.

a) The claim for privacy is not valid under given circumstances.

11. The judges of the High court and also of Supreme Court, by interpreting cases relating to
Right to Privacy made attempts to differentiate between the privacy of an individual and

35
See, Regulation no.24 (O) (i), UGC (Institutions Deemed to be Universities) Regulations, 2010-
“…The person in whose name the institution deemed to be university may sue or be sued shall be the
registrar.”
36
See, Regulation no.24 (O) (ii), UGC (Institutions Deemed to be Universities) Regulations, 2010:-“…
No suit or legal proceedings shall lie against the Central Govt. or the commission or the institution
deemed to be university.”
37
AIR 1975 SC 460.
38
Calcutta Gas Company.v.State of West Bengal, AIR 1962 SC 1044.
39
Ibid.
 that of a public person40. It is claimed that while an individual has a Right to Privacy, a
public man has no such rights. The fact is that even a public man has the Right to Privacy
vis-à-vis his life at home. But, since a public man remains under constant public gaze what
may be legally possible, is practically impossible. The same is the case for a University
campus where the student community is present in such close proximity. According to
judges of the High court, it may be difficult for a public man to maintain secrecy about his
affairs, however private these may be41. Thus additional surveillance is not extraordinarily
intrusive.

b) In any case, assuming that it is, the right can be subjected

to reasonable restrictions

12. In the Nalak Singh v.State of Punjab42, judges of the High court and the Supreme Court
have substantiated that the Right to Privacy was not absolute and that right could be
restricted on reasonable grounds, which were fair and just.43 In the instant case, the
Governing council has adopted the impugned measure of installation of CCTVs for the
promotion of academic excellence and student discipline. These were evidently made in
good faith, with no intrusion of privacy intended, and, thus, can be classified as reasonable.

40
R.C.HINGARANI, MODERN INTERNATIONAL LAW (Oxford & I.B.H publications co. pvt.ltd)
p.45.
41
JITENDRE PANDEY& R.K.DUBEY, CIVIL LIBERTY UNDER INDIAN CONSTITUTION.
42
AIR 1981 SC 760: (1981)1 SCC 420; Kharak Singh.v.State of U.P, AIR 1963 SC 1295(1300);
Govind.v.State of M.P, AIR 1975 SC 1378.
43
JITENDRE PANDEY , R.K.DUBEY, CIVIL LIBERTY UNDER INDIAN CONSTITUTION.
 II. THERE HAS BEEN NO INFRINGEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
UNDER ART.21 AND ART.19(1) (A), (D)
13. The right contended to be the most valued by the civilized man44 has always been assumed
a controversial nature45. The framers of the Constitution, as well as the contemporary law-
makers and the scholars, till date have not felt the need to include Right to Privacy as a
Fundamental right and this clearly indicates that the Right to Privacy does not yet qualify
to be in the exclusive range of fundamental rights46.
14. The first important case dealing with Right to Privacy was the Kharak Singh case47, where
it was held that the Right to Privacy was not a guaranteed right. In M.P. Sharma and
Others v. Satish Chandra, District Magistrate (Delhi) and Others48, it was held that,
“When the constitution makers have thought fit not to subject such regulation to
constitutional limitation by recognition of a fundamental Right to Privacy, analogous to the
American 4th Amendment, we have no justification to import it into a totally different
fundamental right, by some process of strained construction.”
15. There is no provision in the Indian Constitution which explicitly mentions the Right to
Privacy49. The Indian Courts have derived the Right to Privacy under Article 19(1) (a),(d)
and 21 of the Indian Constitution50 and the Directive Principles of State Policy. However,
the Courts continue to maintain that the Right to Privacy is not an absolute but a limited

44
Ohmstead.v.U.S., 277 U.S. 438,478(1928).
45
D.D BASU, op.cit, VOL III, p.244.
46
Supra.n.43
47
Kharak Singh.v.State of U.P, AIR 1963 SC 1295(1300).
48
AIR 1954 SC 300.
49
Govind.v.State of M.P, AIR 1975 SC 1378.
50
NANDAN KAMATH, LAWS RELATING TO COMPUTERS, INTERNET & E-COMMERCE
p.283-293(5th ed. 2012); See also, M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (12th ed. 2014); V.N
SHUKLA, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (12th ed., Eastern Book Company, 1950) 2013); Govind.v.State
of M.P, AIR 1975 SC 1378; Kharak Singh.v.State of U.P, AIR 1963 SC 1295(1300).
 right which may be subject to restrictions from the state51, this is a universally held opinion
by lawyers and jurists, alike52.
16. It is well established that freedoms guaranteed by Art.19 (1) (a)-(g) are constricted by
certain limitations given under Art.19(2),(3),(4),(5) and (6)53. Therefore, it can be derived
that the Freedom of Expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) is not absolute, and are
qualified rights that is susceptible under the Constitutional scheme to be curtailed under
specific conditions. The exceptions specified in 19 (2) - (5) if considered in the present
situation, where the surveillance is being conducted in the college premises, satisfies a
number of the given conditions. Here, public order maintenance, security of state and
minimizing incitement to an offence are the precautions taken on the part of the college
authorities, which they are authorized to do54 and which are of utmost importance due to
the new aspect of prevention of college violence which has evolved after the Virginia
Tech55 shootings and other such cases.
17. Also, against the validity of shadowing a suspect’s movements, contending that it would
induce in him a psychological inhibition against movement and this would infringe
Art.19(1)(d) which should be interpreted as postulating freedom not only from physical,
but even psychological, restraints on a person’s movement, the court ruled that

51
Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India, AIR 1960 SC 544; See also, Govind.v.State of M.P,
AIR 1975 SC 1378:(1975)2 SCC 148; Maneka Gandhi.v.Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597;
Nalak Singh v.State of Punjab, AIR 1981 SC 761981)1 SCC 420.
52
Supra.n.36
53
Which state that, “this will not affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State
from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the
right in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly
relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of
Court, defamation or incitement to an offence”.
54
Babulal Parate v.State of Maharashtra, AIR 1961 SC 884, where it is was stated that
anticipatory action to prevent disorders are within the ambit of Art.19
55
Report of the Virginia Tech Review Panel retrieved from
http://www.governor.virginia.gov/TempContent/techPanelReport.cfm
 Art.19(1)(d) guarantees freedom from physical, direct and tangible restraints and has no
reference or imponderable effect on the mind of a person56. And hence, validity of the
claim of infringement of Art.19(1)(d) cannot be upheld.
18. Notably, even though it has been contended that Right to Privacy is an emanation from
Art.19(1)(a), (d) and 2157, the Right to Privacy has been held to be largely under Art.2158,
which is considered as the guardian of the personal liberties of an individual59. However,
this right to personal liberty is also subject to limitations specified under Art.21, which
include a valid legal sanction. Here, the decision has been made by the Governing Council
which is the highest decision making authority60 and, thus, qualifies.
19. Additionally, truth of a matter published doesn’t afford a defense in case of privacy61. In
the present case, the presidency college has not misrepresented any person, faculty or
student, and any harm that arose was purely coincidental.
20. Additionally, the university campus is a public sphere, and assuming that it is the student’s
right to privacy is still practically impossible as he/she remains under the constant
observation or gaze of those around an extraordinary infringement of the student’s
fundamental right has also not occurred on the part of the Respondents.

56
M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (12th ed., LexisNexis-1962) (2014); V.N SHUKLA,
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (12th ed., Eastern Book Company-1950) (2013).
57
M.P JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (12th ed., LexisNexis-1962) (2014); See also,
Govind.v.State of M.P, AIR 1975 SC 1378.
58
NANDAN KAMATH, LAWS RELATING TO COMPUTERS, INTERNET & E-
COMMERCE p.283-293(5th ed. 2012).
59
Supra.n.36.
60
See Regulation no.54, UGC (Institutions Deemed to be Universities) Regulations, 2010.
61
See Warren & Brandies, Right to Privacy, 4 Harvard Law Review 193 (1980).
III. THE INSTALLATION OF CCTVs PROMOTE ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE AND
STUDENT DISCIPLINE

21. Surveillance per se may not violate individual or private rights including the Right to
Privacy62. But it was maintained that any law which effected privacy was required not to be
fanciful, arbitrary or oppressive63.The Courts have observed in many instances64 the need for
surveillance in ensuring safety and prevention of anti-social elements in Universities, and that
for the sake of protection of health and morals the impugned right can be restricted 65.
Numerous incidents of violence in college campuses and terrorist activities have
increased the need for surveillance. Such surveillance has been recommended by the Delhi
Police and the UGC (Raghavan Committee). Also, CCTV cameras have been installed in
College campuses around the globe but no instance of privacy violation has been accepted.
Colleges like Delhi University, Aligarh Muslim University, Punjab University and Christ
University, Bangalore have installed CCTV camera in the college premises. Around the world
CCTV cameras have been installed in premier Universities like Harvard University and MIT.
A case study conducted in Harvard stated that ‘such a system both in crime control and general
campus system would outweigh the costs.’66

22. The Raghavan Committee guidelines for the Prevention of Ragging, whose crucial
nature was upheld by the Supreme Court, mentions that an adequate watch should be kept by
the College authorities to prevent incidents of violence or ragging in the college premises 67.
The UGC Anti-Ragging Guidelines also prescribe strict measures such as surprise checks in
rooms to tackle ragging68. If the act of mere surveillance is held to be a violation of privacy
then, the judgment and orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India will be impossible to
implement.

62
M.P.JAIN, INDIAN CONSITITUTIONAL LAW (7th ed. LexisNexis-1962) (2010).
63
PROF.NARENDRA KUMAR, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA (8th ed. LexisNexis- ) (2014).
64
Court on its own motion v.The state of Jhrakhand & Ors., AIR 2012 KHARKHAND 146.
65
X v.Hospital Z, (1998) 8 SCC 296.
66
Jana Lepon and Rachel Popkin, A Case Study of CCTV at Harvard, Retrieved from
http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/cs199r/fp/JanaRachel.pdf.
67
Supra.n.62.
68
University of kerala v.Council, Principals’ Colleges, Kerala & Ors.,2009 INSC 284
 23. The ‘Deemed’ status is conferred primarily due to the Institution’s academic excellence.
Thus the Institution is under a responsibility to ensure the same 69
24. It can be seen that since, such a system is already running smoothly in numerous places
around the country, the college has taken necessary steps with good faith. It can also be
concluded, thus, that the CCTV cameras create no restriction on the Right to Privacy and the
decision of installing the cameras keeping in view the location and the prevailing situation is
absolutely justified and in the best interest of the students.

69
See, Rule 11, UGC(Institutions Deemed to be Universities) Regulations, 2010 - “An
institution Deemed to be University shall maintain standards, higher than the
minimum, of instruction, academic and physical infrastructure, qualifications of
teachers, etc. as prescribed for college level institutions”
Prayer for Relief________________________________________________________________

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore in the light of above facts stated, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the Court
may be pleased to cancel the application for the Writ petition and adjudge and declare:

I. That no Writ of Mandamus could be brought against the college.

II. That the decision of the management to install the CCTV did not violate the rights of the
students.

III. That the decision was valid to serve the aim of the college to ‘promote academic
excellence and student discipline.’

The Court may also be pleased to pass any other order in the light of justice, equity and good
conscience.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS…………………………………………..……………..II
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………...…………………..III
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………………………...………………….VI
STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………….………………..VII
QUESTIONS PRESENTED…………………………………………..……………….VIII
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………………………………IX
Error! Bookmark not defined.
ARGUMENTS………………………………………………………….……………….…X
I. THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE STUDENT PRIVACY FORUM
(SPF) IS NOT MAINTAINABLE UNDER ART.226………….……1-7
A. The presidency college cannot be brought under the purview of
Art.12…………………………………………………………….1-5
B. There is no infringement of fundamental rights……………6-7
II. THERE IS HAS BEEN NO INFRINGEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL
ART.19 (1) (a), (d) AND UNDER ART.21……………………….....8-10
III. CCTV SURVEILLANCE PROMOTES ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE
AND STUDENT DISCIPLINE……………………………………..11-12
Prayer...............................................................................................................................IX
 Index of Abbreviations

§ : Section

¶ : Paragraph

A.P. : Andhra Pradesh

AIR : All India Reporter

Anr. : Another

Bom. : Bombay

Cri.L.J : Criminal Law Journal

Govt : Government

Mad. : Madras

n. : Note

Org : Organisation

Ors. : Others

Pvt : Private

SC : Supreme Court

SCC : Supreme Court Cases

Sd/- : Signed

Supp. : Supplementary

U.G.C : University Grants Commission.

U.P. : Uttar Pradesh

U.S. : United
 TABLE OF CASES

1. Ajayhasia v.Khalid, AIR 1981 SC 487 (paras 7,11,15)

2. Ajit Singh.v.State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 335
3. Air India Statutory Corporation.v.United Labour Union, AIR 1997 SC 645
4. All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association.v.Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 767
5. Anadi Mukta Sadguru Trust.v.V.R.Rudavi, (1989)2 SCC 691: AIR 1989 SC 1607
6. Arun Kumar.v.ICFAI University, AIR 2009 (NOC) 2860 (UTR)
7. B S Minhas.v.Indian Statistical Institute & Ors, AIR 1984 SCR(1) 395
8. Babulal Parate v.State of Maharashtra, AIR 1961 SC 884.
9. Bareily Development Authority.v.Ajay Dal Singh, AIR 1989 SC 1076
10. Basappa.v.Nagappa, AIR 1954 SC 4410
11. Biswajit Panda v.The Institute of Chartered Financial Analysis of India University & Ors., AIR
2007 (NOC) 289 (CAL).
12. C.I.W.T.C.v.Broje Nath Ganguly, AIR 1986 SC 1571 (para 69)
13. Calcutta Gas Co.v.State Of West Bengal, AIR 1962 SC 1044
14. Cf.Samarth Transport Co.v.R.T.A, AIR 1961 SC 93(95)
15. Cf.Sham dasavi.v.Central Bank of India, (1952) SCR 391(394)
16. Chairman V Vijay Kumar AIR 1989 SC 1976
17. Chairman, Rly.Board.v.Chandrima Das
18. Chander Mohan Khanna.v.National Council of Educational Research and Training, AIR 1992 SC
76
19. Collector & District Magistrate v.S.Sultan, AIR 2008 SC 2096.
20. D.C.M.Ltd.v.RSE Board, Kota, AIR 1988 Raj.64
21. Devadas.v.K.E.College, AIR 1964 Raj 6(11)
22. Election Commisioner.v.Saka Venkata (1953) SCR 1144
23. Federal Bank Ltd V Sagar Thomas AIR 2003 SC 4325

24. Fernandez.v.State of Mysore, AIR 1967 SC 1753 (1757)

25. Francis Coralie.v.Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 746
26. Govind.v.State of M.P, Air 1975 SC 1378:(1975)2 SCC 148
27. Gujarat S.E Corporation.v.Lotus Hotels, AIR 1983 SC 848
28. Gurucharan Singh.v.Registrar, Coopt. Societies, A.P, 2005(7) SCALE 457
29. Har Shankar.v.Dy.Excise Commisioner, (1975)3 SCR 254 (paras 16-18)
30. Hill.v.National Collegiate Athletic Assocation, 865 P2d 633(1994)
31. K.K.Kochuni.v.State of Madras, AIR 1979 SC 1377
32. Kaharak Singh.v.State of U.P, AIR 1963 SC 1295(1300)
33. Kaira.v.P & E Corporation, AIR 1984 SC 1361
34. Kharak Singh V State of U.P AIR 1936 SC 1295
35. Kochunni.v.State of Madras, AIR 1969 SC 225
36. Lal saiga.v.PGI. AIR 1991 P&H 47
37. Laxmi Narain.v.Kuldeep Singh, AIR 2015 NOC 128
38. M/S Seven Brothers.v.Hinduja Leyland Finance Company & Others, AIR 2015 MP 164
39. Mahindra.v.State of U.P, AIR 1963 SC 1019
40. Makhav Singh.v.State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 381
41. Maneka Gandhi.v.Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597
42. Minhas.v.Indian Statistical Institute, AIR 1984 SC 363 (para 20)
43. Mysore Paper Milla Ltd.v.Mysore Paper Mills Officer Association, AIR 2002 SC 609
44. Nalak Singh.v.State of Punjab, AIR 1981 SC 760:(1981)1 SCC 420
45. N Parthiban and another V The Inspector General of Registration Santhome,Chennai AIR 2015
NOC 179
46. N Prathiban & another.v.The Inspector General of Registration Santhome,Chennai, AIR 2015 NOC
179
47. N.K.Ramiah.v.Yadava Kahi Nithi Regd.Society, AIR 1985 Madras 211
48. National Institute of Technology.v.Nirah Kumar Singh, (2007)2 SCC 481
49. Ohmstead.v.U.S., 277 U.S. 438,478(1928)
50. P.U.C.L.v.Union of India,(1997) 1 SCC 30
51. Pradeep Kumar Biswas.v.Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, JI 2002(4) SC 146
52. Pradeep kumar.v.I.I.C.B, (2002)5 SCC 111
53. Praga Tools Corporation.v.C.A.Imanual,(1969)1 SCC 585:AIR 1969 SC 1306
54. R.D.Shetty.v.International Airport Authority, AIR 1979 SC 1628
55. R.Rajagopal.v.State of Tamil Nadu, (1994)6 SCC 632
56. Railway Board.v.Observer Publications, AIR 1967 SC 1856
57. Rajasthan State Electricity Board.v.Mohan Lal, AIR 1967 SC 1857. (1856)
58. Ramana.v.I.A.A.I, AIR 1979 SC 1628 (para 15-16)
59. Reliance Airport Developers(P) Ltd.v.AAI (2006) 10 SCC
60. Rohatas Industries Ltd.v.Staff Union(1976)2 SCC 82:AIR 1976 SC 425
61. Romesh Thapper.v.State of Madras, AIR 1956 SC 124
62. S.A.Khan.v.State of Haryana, (1993)6 SCC 327
63. Sabhajit Tewary.v.Union Of India, AIR 1975 SC 1329
64. Saksena.v.State of M.P, AIR 1967 SC 1264
65. Sehravardi & Ors, AIR 1981 SC 487
66. Shanti.v.Reg.Dy.Director, AIR 1981 SC 1577
67. Sohan lal .v.Union of India, AIR 1957 SC 529:1957. SCR 738
68. Som Prakash Rekhvi.v.Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 212.
69. Som Prakash.v.Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 212 (para 36) [Bharat petroleum Corpn.]
70. Sri KonA Seema Cooperative Central Bank Ltd V Seetha Raju AIR 1990 A.P 171
71. State of Assam.v.Ajit, AIR 1965 SC 1196(1200)
72. State of Orissa.v.Madangopal, (1952) SCR 28(33)
73. State of Bihar v.Shailabala Devi, AIR 1952 SC 329
74. State Trading Corporation V CTO AIR 1963 SC 1811
75. Sukhdev Singh.v.Bhagat Ram, AIR 1975 SC 1331
76. Sunil.v.Delhi Admn, AIR 1978 SC 1378
77. Surmukh Singh.v.Indian Red Cross Society, AIR 1985 Lab 1C 1072
78. Surya.v.B.S.E B
79. Tahir.v.District Board, AIR 1954 SC 630
80. Tekraj Vasandi.v.Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 469
81. T.Thangaasu v.Superintendent of Police Eddalore, AIR 2005 Madras 127
82. U.K.Srivastana.v.U.P.R.K.K.Nigam, AIR 2005 SC 411
83. U.P Warehousing Corporation.v.Vijay, AIR 1980 SC 840
84. Uday Narayan Agarwal.v.Chattisgarh Udyog Va Vyavasayak Sangh, AIR 2015 NOC 288
85. Umesh Chandra.v.U.N.Singh, AIR 1968 Dat.3
86. Union of India.v.Joseph, (1973)2 SCR 752(755)
87. University of Madras.v.Santa Bai, AIR 1954 Mad 67
88. Unni Krishnan.v.State of A.P, AIR 1993 SC 2178
89. Vaish Degree College V Laxmi Narain AIR 1976 SC 888
90. VST Industries Ltd v. VST Industries Worker's Union AIR 2001 I SCC 298.

91. Zee Telefilms.v.Union of India, 2005(1) SCALE 666

92. Zoroastrian Co-opt Housing Society Ltd.v.Dy.Registrar, AIR 2005 SC 2306
Books Referred

 PROFESSOR NARENDRA KUMAR,CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA ,P-86

(2011) edition.
 DR.KAILASH RAI, THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, p-(554-560) (2008)
7th edition .
 B.N.RAO,INDIA’S CONSTITUTION IN THE MAKING, p-245 (1954).
 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,AIR 1954 MAD-67,vol-41.
 ASIM PANDYA ,WRIT AND CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDIES, (2009),p-265,first
edition.
 J.N.PANDEY,CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA , (2009),46th edition.
 H.M.SEEVARI,CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, p-88,(1988).
 J.N.PANDEY,CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 43rd edition.
 M.P.JAIN,INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW,p-1168,7th edition (2010).
 ADAM CARLYLE BRECKENRIDGE, THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY,p-2,(1970).
 V.N.SHUKLA,CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, p-154,11th edition,2010.
 ACHARYA DR.DURGA DAS BASU, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA,P-23-
24,(2009) .
 JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA, DR.G.B.REDDY, RIGHT TO INFORMATION AND
LAW, p-165,(2010) .
 CONSTITUTION, AIR FEBRUARY,p-24 2015,NOC 12 (HP).
 CONSTITUTION, AIR MARCH,p-169,NOC 288(CHH).
 JUSTICE C.K.THAKKER & M.C.THAKKER, LECTURES ON ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW, (ed. 2008).
 AIR 1954( Vol-41), J&K, KUTCH, Madhya Bharat, Madras.
STATUTES APPLIED

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950.

UGC REGULATIONS ACT, 1950.
RAGHAVAN COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS ,2010
KARNATAKA SOCIETY REGISTRATION ACT, 1972
Statement of Jurisdiction

With reference to the circumstances that have been presented in the instant case, the defendant
has moved the Hon’ble Court due to the petition filed against it by the Petitioners under Article
226 of the Indian Constitution. The Defendant most respectfully submits to the jurisdiction of the
Hon’ble Court .
Statement of Facts

1. The prestigious Presidency College of Bangalore (a deemed university) appointed famous

educationalist Mr. Kurien Joseph to study and propose the steps to be taken for improving the
“academic excellence and students discipline”.

2. Mr. Kurien Joseph submitted his report, inter alia, recommending installation of close circuit
television cameras (CCTV) in the campus-classrooms, student’s rooms, corridors and
playground to monitor the student’s activities inside and outside the classroom for achieving
academic excellence and student discipline.

3. The Governing Council of the Presidency College (a body registered under the Karnataka
Society Registration Act, 1972) considered the report in consultation with the principal of the
College and decided to accept the above recommendations for installation of CCTV’s in the
campus with effect from 20 July 2014 and connect it to the internet.

4. Ms. Nandini Sen, final year student of the bachelor of management, attended the College as
usual on 10 August 2014. However, on CCTV her parents found her chatting with boys. When
Ms. Nandini returned home, she was taken to task by her parents who are both were bureaucrats.

5. The likes of Ms. Nandini who were getting monitored by their parents formed an association
called Students Privacy Forum(SPF) and filed a writ petition in the High Court, commanding the
Governing Council of the Respondent Presidency College to remove the CCTV’s installed in the
campus.

6. The Governing Council of the Presidency College constructed the plea by filing its counter
petition.
 Questions Presented
The following questions are presented before the court in the instant matter-

1. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE STUDENTS PRIVACY FORUM

IS MAINTAINABLE.

. 2. WHETHER THE ISTALLATION OF CCTVs INFRINGED THE FUNDAMENTAL

RIGHT TO PRIVACY.
Summary of Pleadings
1. The writ petition filed by students privacy forum is not maintainable under art.226

The respondent submits that the writ petition is not maintainable. The primary requirements for
the maintainability of a writ is that a fundamental right has been infringed and that the body on
whom the right is to be enforced comes under the purview of Art.12, which gives definition to
the term ‘state’. Analysis of the facts and applicability of legal knowledge leads to the conclusion
that the said conditions have not been satisfied by the Presidency College and hence the
petitioner cannot move the court for the filing of a writ petition under Art.226.

2. The installation of CCTVs does not infringe the fundamental right to privacy as under
Art.19(1) (a), (d), and under Art.21.
The Right to Privacy is not an absolute right and can be subjected to reasonable restrictions
which are just and fair, and in anticipation or security measure against unruly elements and to
curb the spread of speech and expression that would result in the outbreak of violence. Also,
since the university is a public sphere and there hasn’t been any extraordinary intrusion on
the part of the college authority, wherein a single student was targeted, the claim that there
has been an infringement does not stand.
3. CCTV surveillance improves academic excellence and student discipline
CCTV surveillance has been recommended under the UGC Anti-Ragging guidelines, 2010;
and the Raghavan Commission guidelines for the Prevention of Ragging, 2010. CCTV
surveillance is also universally used, particularly in well-reputed colleges and the claim of an
intrusion of privacy has not been entertained. The Supreme Court and the High courts have
on many occasions noted the rising no. of ragging and rape cases within college campuses
and have issued, thus, orders which would help stem them, which includes authorizing the
authorities to keep a watch over the student community to ensure no student is victimized
which could have a deep effect on both their physical, psychological and, hence, academic
wellbeing. Thus, CCTV surveillance is born from a bona fide intention to further the
academic excellence and student discipline of the student community.

.
 KERALA LAW ACADEMY TRIAL MOOT, 2015

TEAM NO. 7

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PETITIONER

_____________________________________________________________________________________

ON BEHALF OF AGAINST

Student Privacy Forum (SPF) The Presidency College

PETITIONER RESPONDENT

TEAM
Gopika Sanal Kumar
Divya R Nair
Lettisha L.S

FOR THE KIND ATTENTION OF THE HONOURABLE

JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH
COURT
 KERALA LAW ACADEMY TRIAL MOOT, 2015

TEAM NO. 7

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT

_____________________________________________________________________________________

ON BEHALF OF AGAINST

The Presidency College Student Privacy Forum (SFP)

RESPONDENTS PETITIONER

TEAM
Gopika Sanal Kumar
Divya R Nair
Lettisha L.S

FOR THE KIND ATTENTION OF THE HONOURABLE

JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH

COURT