TC:JU/Fol/04

JECRC UNIVERSITY 1ST VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

Before

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF PARKVIEW

W.P(C)NO. OF 2010

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:

GREY HARRIS (PETITIONER)

versus

UNION OF PARKVIEW (RESPONDENT)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents........................................................................................................................I

Index of Authorities.................................................................................................................III

List of Abbreviations.................................................................................................................V

Statement of Jurisdiction.........................................................................................................VI

Statement of Facts..................................................................................................................VII

Statement of Issues..................................................................................................................IX

Summary of Arguments............................................................................................................X

Pleadings....................................................................................................................................1

[ISSUE 1]: THE IMPUGNED PROVISIONS OF THE PREVENTIVE DETENTION

ACT, 1935 ARE NOT VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 22 AND 21 AS PER PROVISIONS
OF ARTICLE 13(1)...............................................................................................................1

[1.1] S.7 OF THE PREVENTIVE DETENTION ACT, 1935 IS IN CONSONANCE

WITH ART 22 OF THE CONSTITUTION......................................................................1

[1.2] S.6 OF THE PREVENTIVE DETENTION ACT IS IN CONSONANCE WITH

ENTRY 9 LIST 1 AND ENTRY 3 LIST 3 OF VII SCHEDULE OF THE
CONSTITUTION..............................................................................................................1

[1.3.] THE IMPUGNED PROVISIONS OF PREVENTIVE DETENTION ACT, 1935

DOES NOT VIOLATES ART 21.....................................................................................1

[1.4] THE PREVENTIVE DETENTION ACT IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS

PER PROVISIONS OF ART 13(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION......................................1

[ISSUE 2]: THE ORDER PASSED AGAINST GREY HARRIS FOR PREVENTIVE
DETENTION IS VALID IN TERMS OF ARTICLE 19(1)(d) AND ARTICLE 19(5) CAN

PAGE | I
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT TABLE OF CONTENTS
 SAVE THE DETENTION ORDER DESPITE OF THE EXPRESS PROVISION UNDER
ARTICLE 22..........................................................................................................................1

[2.1] THE OBJECTIVE OF THE ORDER IS IN CONSONANCE WITH ARTICLE

19(5)...................................................................................................................................1

[2.2] THE ORDER OF DETENTION IS IN CONSONACE WITH ARTICLE 22.........1

Prayer for Relief.........................................................................................................................2

PAGE | II
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT TABLE OF CONTENTS
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

1. A.K Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27............................................................XII

2. Ankit Ashok Jalan v. UOI, AIR 2020 SC 1936.................................................................XII

3. Attorney General for India and ors v. Amratlal Prajivanda and ors, (1994) 5 SCC 54....XIII

4. Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd v. State of U.P, (2011) 9 SCC 354.................................XIV

5. Delhi transport corporation v. DTC Mazdoor union, AIR 1991 SC 101...........................XII

6. Dropti Devi and ors v. UOI, AIR 2012 SC 2550.................................................................XI

7. Government of India and ors v. Alka Subhash Gadiya, (1992) 1 SCC 496.....................XIV

8. Gujarat water supply v. Unique electro (Gujarat)(P), AIR 1989 SC 973.........................XVI

9. Haradhan Saha & Another v. The State Of West Bengal & Ors, AIR 1974 SC 2154.......XII

10. Hemlata kantilal shah v. State of Maharashtra and ors, (1981) 4 SCC 647.....................XII

11. Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955................................................XVII

12. Khudiram Das v. The State Of West Bengal & Ors, AIR 1974 SC 550.........................XIII

13. Maneka Gandhi v. UOI, AIR 1978 SC 597....................................................................XIV

14. State of Madras v. VG Row, 1952 SCR 597..................................................................XVI

15. State of West Bengal v. Ashok Dey and ors, AIR 1972 SC 1660..................................XIV

16. Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagat Ram, (1975) 3 SCR 619..........................................................XII

17. Sunil Fulchand Shah v. UOI and Ors, (2000) 3 SCC 409................................................XV

18. The State Of Bombay v. Atma Ram Sridhar Vaidya , AIR 1951 SC 157.........................XI

19. U.P Warehouse Corporation v. Vinay Narayan, AIR 1980 SC 840.................................XII

PAGE | III
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Statutes

INDIAN CONSTITUTION.......................................................................................................1

Maintenance of Internal Security Act,1971...............................................................................1

Foreign Exchange And Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act,1974.....................................1

The Indian Penal Code,1860......................................................................................................1

Books

D.D.Basu, Commentary on the constitution of India (9th ed. 2014)..........................................1

M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (8th ed. 2018)..................................................................1

V.N Shukla, Constitution of India (13th ed. 2017.......................................................................1

PAGE | IV
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS EXPANSIONS

HON’BLE HONOURABLE

S.C SUPREME COURT

ART ARTICLE

SCC SUPREME COURT CASES

S. SECTION

SCR SUPREME COURT REPORTS

AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

UOI UNION OF INDIA

U.P. UTTAR PRADESH

CL CLAUSE

PARA PARAGRAGH

UK UNITEDWORLD KINGDOM

ED EDITION

ORS OTHERS

PAGE | V
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Respondent humbly approaches this Hon’ble Supreme Court of Parkview in response to
the petition filed under Article 321 of the Constitution of Parkview.
The present memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments in the present
case

1
“The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred
by this Part is guaranteed”

PAGE | VI
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Background of Union of Parkview

Union of Parkview is a democratic country located in northwing continent. For 200 years
Unitedworld Kingdown (UK) ruled over it as its colony. Parkview gained its independence in
the year 1947. After independence the constituent assembly of Parkview drafted the
constitution for their country with strong foundational value in favour of individual’s life and
liberty.

2. Background of Preventive Detention (PD) Act,1935

When Parkview was under the control of UK, the legislature of UK passed this act to curb
revolts that were taking place for independence. This law was regarded as a regressive law
because it curbs individual’s liberty. Even after independence, Parkview did not abolish this
act due to political instability at that time and to curb any attempt to disassociate the country.
At that time even the S.C. refused to interfere but advised the government to take steps in
direction of scrapping away this law due to its barbaric and regressive nature.

3. Elections in State of Whiteland

Elections were going to take place in the state of Whiteland of union of Parkview in 2010.
Ruling party was Parkview National Congress (PNC) and opposition was the Sociminist
party headed by Grey Harris. Grey Harris was a vibrant leader but facing investigations on
various charges including hate speech, inciting public, and community outrages

4. Detention of Grey Harris

On 18th April, 2010 Grey Harris was travelling to a district named Rochhinpuram. On his way
he was interrupted by some police officers, who presented before him orders of his detention
under PD Act issued by Whiteland home department.
Grey Harris inquired for the reasons of his detention but was not told and was kept under
detention for more than three (3) months. When this issue gained national attention,
Government of Whiteland issued a public statement that Grey Harris was going to incite hate
PAGE | VII
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT STATEMENT OF FACTS
among the residents of the district by giving a communal address which would result in
disturbance of public order. So, he was detained.

5. Case before S.C.

Grey Harris challenged the validity of The PD Act, 1935 and argued it to be in violation of
certain Articles of the constitution and also challenged the order of his detention. Union of
Parkview joined the case as respondents to argue that The PD Act, 1935 is constitutional and
order issued under it was also valid.

PAGE | VIII
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT STATEMENT OF FACTS
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE 1
Whether the impugned provisions of Preventive Detention Act, 1935 are violative of Article
22 and 21 as per provisions of Article 13(1)?

ISSUE 2
Whether the order passed against Grey Harris for preventive detention is valid in terms of
Article 19(1)(d) and whether Article 19(5) can save the detention order despite an express
provision under Article 22 related to detention?

PAGE | IX
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT STATEMENT OF ISSUES
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

[ISSUE 1]: THE IMPUGNED PROVISIONS OF THE PREVENTIVE DETENTION

ACT, 1935 ARE NOT VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 22 AND 21 AS PER PROVISIONS
OF ARTICLE 13(1)

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble S.C that the impugned provisions of the
Preventive Detention Act, 1935, that is, S.6 and S.7, are not in violation of Art 22 and 21. S.7
of the Act is in Consonance with Art 22(5) as the wordings of both are exactly the same and
both provide for right to be heard and right of representation and further S.6 of the Act gives
power to the government to give order of detention which is also provided by different entries
in VII schedule of the constitution and the Act also not violates Art 21 because the personal
liberty can be curtailed by a procedure establish by the law which is provided in the Act.

[ISSUE 2]: THE ORDER PASSED AGAINST GREY HARRIS FOR PREVENTIVE
DETENTION IS VALID IN TERMS OF ARTICLE 19(1)(d) AND ARTICLE 19(5)
CAN SAVE THE DETENTION ORDER DESPITE OF THE EXPRESS PROVISION
UNDER ARTICLE 22.

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble S.C that the preventive detention order passed
against Grey Harris is valid in terms of Article 19(1)(d) because it is a reasonable restriction
for the interest of general public on the freedom of movement of Grey Harris covered under
Art 19(5) to prevent him from giving any communal address that might result in disturbance
of public order. There must be some authority in hand of government to maintain peace and
public order and the Preventive Detention Act provides for the same. Further as the
contention is regarding whether the order passed is valid or not so the safeguards for
preventive detention under Art 22 does not come in play.

PAGE | X
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
 PLEADINGS

[ISSUE 1]: THE IMPUGNED PROVISIONS OF THE PREVENTIVE DETENTION

ACT, 1935 ARE NOT VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 22 AND 21 AS PER PROVISIONS
OF ARTICLE 13(1)

1. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble S.C that the impugned provisions of the
Preventive Detention Act, 1935, that is, S.6 and S.7 does not violate Art 22 and Art 21
of the Constitution and therefore it is constitutionally valid under Art 13(1).

[1.1] S.7 OF THE PREVENTIVE DETENTION ACT, 1935 IS IN CONSONANCE

WITH ART 22 OF THE CONSTITUTION.

2. By a plain reading of Art 22 of the constitution and according to the Hon’ble S.C
judgment in case of “Dropti Devi and ors v. UOI2” Art 22 is divided into two parts.
First part comprises of cl 1 and 2 is applicable to those persons arrested or detained
under a law otherwise than a preventive detention law. The second part that comprises
of cl 4 to 7 applies to persons arrested or detained under the preventive detention law.
3. If a law of preventive detention, or administrative action relating thereto, infringes
any of these cl(s) or provisions, then the law or the action would be invalid as
infringing the fundamental right of the detainee3”
4. In “The State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Sridhar Vaidya 4” Kania CJ held preventive
detention is not by itself considered an infringement of any of the fundamental rights
mentioned in Part III of the Constitution. This is, of course, subject to the limitations
prescribed in cl (5) of Art 22.
5. If we read S.75 and Art 22(5) we can find that the language of both, the section and
the Art are exactly the same.

2
Dropti Devi and ors v. UOI, AIR 2012 SC 2550.
3
M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law 1241 (8th ed. 2018).
4
The State Of Bombay v. Atma Ram Sridhar Vaidya , AIR 1951 SC 157.
5
Moot Proposition, para 5.
PAGE | XI
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT PLEADINGS
 6. Both S.7 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1935 and Art 22(5) of the constitution
provides for a dual requirement, that is, (1) To communicate to the person grounds of
his detention, (2) To afford earliest opportunity of making representation against the
order6.
7. Thus, it is clear that both, the S. and Art convey the same idea and meaning.
8. Further the two basic aspects of the principle of natural justice
(i). Nemo judex in causa sua – one cannot made a judge in his own cause or the rule
against bias.
(ii). Audi alteram partem – a judge should always listen to the other party or a fair
hearing must should be done before any order.
These principles have been upheld in numerous S.C judgments like “Delhi transport
corporation v. DTC Mazdoor union7”, “Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagat Ram8”, “U.P
Warehouse Corporation v. Vinay Narayan9” and many more. These principles are
also been complied with by S.7 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1935 by the very fact
that it provides for the communication of grounds of detention shall be made and
opportunity of hearing will be given.
9. Further in “Hemlata kantilal shah v. State of Maharashtra and ors 10” the Hon’ble S.C
has held that if there is a law of preventive detention empowering the authority to
detain a person to prevent him from committing any offence, it can do so, but it has to
comply with the provisions of Art 22(5). And as stated above that S.7 of the
Preventive Detention Act and Art 22(5) of the constitution are same.
10. In “A.K Gopalan v. State of Madras11” the Hon’ble S.C upheld the validity of the
Preventive Detention Act, 1950 and held that it is not in violation of Art 19, Art 21
and Art 22 of the Constitution.
11. In “Haradhan Saha & Another v. The State Of West Bengal & Ors 12” the Hon’ble S.C
upheld the Validity of MISA13 which is again a preventive detention law and held not
in violation of Art 19 and 22 and also observed “The essential concept of preventive
detention is that the detention of a person is not to punish him for something he has

6
Ankit Ashok Jalan v. UOI, AIR 2020 SC 1936.
7
Delhi transport corporation v. DTC Mazdoor union, AIR 1991 SC 101.
8
Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagat Ram, (1975) 3 SCR 619.
9
U.P Warehouse Corporation v. Vinay Narayan, AIR 1980 SC 840.
10
Hemlata kantilal shah v. State of Maharashtra and ors, (1981) 4 SCC 647.
11
A.K Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27.
12
Haradhan Saha & Another v. The State Of West Bengal & Ors, AIR 1974 SC 2154.
13
Maintenance of Internal Security Act,1971, No.26, Acts of Parliament,1971 (India).
PAGE | XII
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT PLEADINGS
 done but to prevent him from doing it. The, basis of detention is the satisfaction of the
executive of a reasonable probability of the likelihood of the detenu acting in a
manner similar to his past acts and preventing him by detention from doing the same”
12. Again the validity of MISA was challenged in “Khudiram Das v. The State Of West
Bengal & Ors14” the Hon’ble S.C reiterated its position in Haradhan Saha case and
upheld it.
13. In “Attorney General for India and ors v. Amratlal Prajivanda and ors 15” the Hon’ble
S.C upheld the Validity of COFEPOSA16 which is again a Preventive detention law
and held it not in violation of Art 19, 21 and Art 22.
14. Thus if all these case laws a preventive detention law can be upheld as valid by the
Hon’ble S.C in view for the maintenance of Public order and security of the state then
why can’t the Preventive Detention Act, 1935 be upheld as constitutionally valid.
15. And also it is not a point of contention anymore that S.7 is in violation of Art 22 in
respect to preventive detention.

[1.2] S.6 OF THE PREVENTIVE DETENTION ACT IS IN CONSONANCE WITH

ENTRY 9 LIST 1 AND ENTRY 3 LIST 3 OF VII SCHEDULE OF THE
CONSTITUTION

16. S.6 of the Preventive Detention Act which empowers the Central government and the
State government to detain a person if they are satisfied that the detention is necessary
to maintain public order and peace. In “A.K Gopalan v. State of Madras17” the
Hon’ble S.C held that parliament and state legislature are empowered by the
constitution to make laws regarding preventive detention by Entry 9 List 1 and Entry
3 List 3 of VII Schedule respectively.
17. Moreover, in “Attorney General for India and ors v. Amratlal Prajivanda and ors 18” a
9 judge bench of the Hon’ble S.C upheld the power of Parliament to enact a law on
preventive detention under the entries stated above.

14
Khudiram Das v. The State Of West Bengal & Ors, AIR 1974 SC 550.
15
Attorney General for India and ors v. Amratlal Prajivanda and ors, (1994) 5 SCC 54.
16
Conservation of Foreign Exchange And Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act,1974, No.25, Acts of
Parliament,1974 (India).
17
Supra note 10, at 10.
18
Supra note 14, at 11.
PAGE | XIII
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT PLEADINGS
 18. Further in “State of West Bengal v. Ashok Dey and ors19” a 4 judge bench of the
Hon’ble S.C upheld the power of state legislature to make laws on preventive
detention under Entry 3 List 3 of VII Schedule.
19. Therefore, we can conclude by the above mentioned case laws that both parliament
and state legislature are under power to make laws on preventive detention. S.6 of the
Preventive Detention Act, 1935 elucidate on these powers of the government only.
20. Thus, if the constitution itself provide for this power, which is used by S.6, then this is
also now not a point of contention that S.6 is in violation of any Art of the
constitution.

[1.3.] THE IMPUGNED PROVISIONS OF PREVENTIVE DETENTION ACT, 1935

DOES NOT VIOLATES ART 21

21. Art 21 of the constitution provides “No person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” According to the
Hon’ble S.C judgment in case of “Maneka Gandhi v. UOI20” Art 14, 19 and 21 are to
be read together, also known as the Golden Triangle of the constitution. In this case
the expression of “Personal Liberty” was interpreted in its widest amplitude and
provides that all the freedoms under Art 19 are cover in this phrase or this Art
altogether as well.
22. Further Art 21 can also be interpreted to mean that a person can be deprived of his
life or personal liberty via the procedure establish by the law. And further in the same
case emphasis was given to the term “procedure establish by the law” and Hon’ble
S.C observed that the procedure should be just and reasonable and not arbitrary and
unfair.
23. Recently this position was again reiterated by the Hon’ble S.C in “Delhi Airtech
Services Pvt. Ltd v. State of U.P21” and held “ the word law which figures in Article
21 of the constitution means a validly enacted law and in order to be a valid law it
must be just, fair and reasonable”
24. Further in “Government of India and ors v. Alka Subhash Gadiya22” It was held by

19
State of West Bengal v. Ashok Dey and ors, AIR 1972 SC 1660.
20
Maneka Gandhi v. UOI, AIR 1978 SC 597.
21
Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd v. State of U.P, (2011) 9 SCC 354.
22
Government of India and ors v. Alka Subhash Gadiya, (1992) 1 SCC 496.
PAGE | XIV
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT PLEADINGS
 the Hon’ble S.C, while taking in consideration preventive detention, that when
provisions of Art 21 and 22 are read together make it clear that a person can be
deprived of his personal liberty according to the procedure establish by law”
25. In “A.K Gopalan v. State of Madras23” the Hon’ble S.C upheld the validity of
Preventive detention Act and stated it not to be violative of Art 21.
26. In “Sunil Fulchand Shah v. UOI and Ors 24” the Hon’ble S.C observed “Personal
liberty is one of the most cherished freedoms, perhaps more important than the other
freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution. However, where individual liberty comes
into conflict with an interest of the security of the State or public order, then the
liberty of the individual must give way to the larger interest of the nation.
27. In the same case it was also observed “  Preventive detention is a form of
precautionary state action, intended to prevent a person from indulging in a conduct
injurious to the society or the security of State or public order, it has been recognized
as "a necessary evil" and is tolerated in a free society in the larger interest of security
of State and maintenance of public order”
28. Therefore personal liberty can be curtailed via the procedure establish by law if it is
just and fair. S.6 and 7 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1935 lays down a procedure,
according to which personal liberty is curtailed, which is establish by law and as
stated above S.7 is in consonance of Art 22 and also the concept of natural justice is
fulfilled. Thus the Act is just, fair and reasonable.
29. Further the main motive or objective of the Preventive Detention Act is in the interest
of general public, maintenance public order and security of the state and because of
this motive the personal liberty is curtailed. Thus, the impugned provisions of the
Preventive Detention Act, 1935 does not violates Art 21.

[1.4] THE PREVENTIVE DETENTION ACT IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS

PER PROVISIONS OF ART 13(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION

30. Art 13(1) of the constitution provides to strike down any pre-constitutional law if it
violates any of the right under Part III of the constitution.

23
Supra, note 10, at 10.
24
Sunil Fulchand Shah v. UOI and Ors, (2000) 3 SCC 409.
PAGE | XV
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT PLEADINGS
 31. In the instant case the Petitioner argues that the Preventive Detention Act, 1935 which
is a pre constitutional law should be struck down as it violates Art 22 and 21(Part III)
of the constitution.
32. In the above mentioned paragraphs the Respondent tried to prove how the said Act is
not in violation of Art 22 and Art 21. Hence, from the above arguments or paragraphs
we can conclude that the impugned provisions of Preventive Detention Act, 1935 are
not in violation of Part III and therefore the Act is constitutionally valid.

[ISSUE 2]: THE ORDER PASSED AGAINST GREY HARRIS FOR PREVENTIVE
DETENTION IS VALID IN TERMS OF ARTICLE 19(1)(D) AND ARTICLE 19(5)
CAN SAVE THE DETENTION ORDER DESPITE OF THE EXPRESS PROVISION
UNDER ARTICLE 22.

33. Art 19(1) (d) provides that all citizens have the right to move freely throughout the
territory of Parkview but this right can be controlled, curtailed and regulated to some
extent by the parliament and the state legislature. Accordingly, Art 19(5) puts
reasonable restriction on the said right in the interest of general public.

[2.1] THE OBJECTIVE OF THE ORDER IS IN CONSONANCE WITH ARTICLE

19(5)

34. In Art 19(5) it is important to note the term “reasonable” because there is no definite
test that has been laid down by the constitution to determine reasonable restriction.
Therefore in the case of “State of Madras v. VG Row25” and reiterating the same in “
Gujarat water supply v. Unique electro (Gujarat)(P) 26” the Hon’ble S.C held that the
test of reasonableness, wherever prescribed, should be applied to each individual
statute impugned and each case has to be judged on its own merits.
35. Art 19(5) provides for reasonable restriction in interest of general public. So if the
interest of general public is at stake some action must be taken by the government to
protect the said interest. For instances we have S. 124A of IPC27 also known as

25
State of Madras v. VG Row, 1952 SCR 597.
26
Gujarat water supply v. Unique electro (Gujarat)(P), AIR 1989 SC 973.
27
The Indian Penal Code,1860, No. 45 of British India Parliament,1860.
PAGE | XVI
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT PLEADINGS
 sedition law by which if anyone tries to bring into hatred or contempt against the
government by words spoken or written will be punished because it can affect public
order. Although freedom of speech is also a right under Art 19(1) 28 but this law also
comes under reasonable restriction under Art 19(2).
36. In “Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar29” the constitutionality of S.124A was
challenged, the Hon’ble S.C upheld it as valid and observed that it comes under the
purview of Art 19(2).
37. Therefore we can say that the government should have some authority or a provision
in a piece of legislation to protect the interest of general public by keeping a check on
these freedoms as they not absolute and can be restricted, Just like S.124A of IPC
which keeps a check on Art 19(1)(a).
38. S.6 of the Preventive Detention Act, 193530 gives authority to the government to issue
detention order when security of the state or maintenance of Public order is in
question. Thus we can say the order will be issued for the interest of general public
and therefore just as S.124A of IPC is protected under Art 19(2) as it affects Art 19(1)
(a), the order of detention must also be protect under Art 19(5) as it affects Art 19(1)
(d).
39. Further in “A.K Gopalan v. State of Madras31” the Hon’ble S.C held that the order of
preventive detention does not violates article 19(1)(d) as the same is protect under Art
19(5).
40. Also In Haradhan Saha & Another v. The State Of West Bengal & Ors32” the Hon’ble
S.C upheld the MISA33, which is also a preventive detention law, as not violative of
Art 19 and if the Act itself is valid, then the order passed under it will also be valid.
41. Now in this case, it is not a matter of contention that many investigations where
pending on various charges on Grey Harris which include hate speech, inciting public,
and community hatred.34 The Government in his public statement explicitly stated that
Grey Harris’s speech in Rochhinpuram might have led to incite of hatred among the
residents that would have disrupted public order and because of this they have

28
INDIA CONST. art.19 cl.1.
29
Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955.
30
Moot Proposition, para 5.
31
Supra, note 10, at 10.
32
Supra, note 11, at 10.
33
Maintenance of Internal Security Act,1971, No.26, Acts of Parliament,1971 (India).
34
Moot Proposition, para 6.
PAGE | XVII
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT PLEADINGS
 detained Grey Harris.35
42. Further, In Preventive detention a person is detained on subjective satisfaction of the
executive to prevent that person from doing an undesirable act in the future. 36 The
object of preventive detention is not to punish a man for having done something but to
intercept him before he does it and prevent him from doing it.37
43. Therefore, here in this case we can conclude that the order of preventive detention is
passed taking in consideration past behavior of Grey Harris and the objective of
which to prevent him from doing an undesirable act, which is hate speech, in future,
so that interest of general public is protected.
44. And further the said order is valid and does not violate Art 19(1)(d) because it comes
under the purview of Art 19(5). If Art 19(5) was missing then the order passed for
detention for sure violates Art 19(1)(d) but this is not the case.

[2.2] THE ORDER OF DETENTION IS IN CONSONACE WITH ARTICLE 22

45. Article 22(4) to (7)38 of the constitution discusses about preventive detention and lays
down safeguards and procedure to be followed when a person is detained under the
order of detention by the authority in question. The most important cl in this Art is 5 th
which give right to the detained person to know the grounds of his detention and
make a representation against the order.
46. As already stated above, Art 22(5) is in consonance with S.7 of the Preventive
Detention Act, 1935 and further stating that the impugned provisions, that is, S.6 and
S.7 of the Act are constitutionally valid under Art 22.
47. Therefore, if S.6 of the Act is valid then the order, which is made by using the said
provision will also be valid under Art 22.
48. Hence the order of detention is in consonance with Art 22.

35
Moot Proposition, para 8.
36
5 DD Basu, Commentary on the constitution of India 150 (9th ed. 2014).
37
V.N Shukla, Constitution of India 240 (13th ed. 2017).
38
INDIA CONST. art.22 cl.4,5,6,7.
PAGE | XVIII
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT PLEADINGS
 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Therefore, in the light of facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited,
it is most humbly and respectfully prayed before this Hon’ble S.C that it may be pleased to:
1. Declare the impugned provisions of Preventive Detention Act, 1935 does not violate
Art 22 and 21.
2. Declare the order of detention against Grey Harris is valid.
3. Declare that Art 19(5) saves the detention order.
And
Pass any other order or grant any other relief in favour of the Respondent, which this
Hon’ble S.C may deem fit to meet the ends of equity, justice and good conscience

Sd/-

Counsel for the Respondent

PAGE | XIX
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT PRAYER FOR RELIEF