TEAM CODE: LF-06

BANGALORE INSTITUTE OF

LEGAL STUDIES

6TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2022

BEFORE THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF MORRIS

IN THE MATTERS OF-

WP. NO. _____/2022

(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF CONSTITUTION OF MORRIS)

MS. REENA……………………………………………………………………………………… PETITIONER 1

Versus

UNION OF MORRIS………….………………………………………………………………… RESPONDENT

CLUBBED WITH

WP. NO. _____/2022

(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF CONSTITUTION OF MORRIS)

DR. RAVI…………………………………………………………………………………………… PETITIONER 2

Versus

UNION OF MORRIS………………………………………………………………………………. RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM for THE RESPONDENTS

 Page 2 of 25

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ 2

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................... 3
STATEMEN OF JURISDICTION ................................................................................................. 6
STATEMENT OF FACTS .............................................................................................................. 7
STATEMENT OF ISSUES ............................................................................................................. 9
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ................................................................................................... 10
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ........................................................................................................ 12
1. WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO
INVESTIGATE THE PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE INVOLVED IN PASSING OF
THE MORRIS DNA PROFILING ACT, 2021? ....................................................................... 12
1.1. PARLIAMENT AND THE JUDICIARY: THE CONSTITUTIONAL
RELATIONSHIP: ................................................................................................................. 12
1.2. SUPREME COURT ON PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITIES: ............................. 14
2. WHETHER MORRIS DNA PROFILING ACT, 2021 AND THE RULES MADE
THERE UNDER THE ACT VIOLATIVE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF MORRIS: .............................................................................................. 17
2.1. GLOBAL SCENARIO REGARDING DNA DATABASE: ...................................... 17
2.2. NOT VIOLATIVE OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS UNDER ART. 20(3)
AND RIGHT TO PRIVACY:................................................................................................ 18
3. WHETHER THERE IS ANY EXCESSIVE DELEGATION OF POWERS UNDER THE
SCHEME OF MORRIS DNA PROFILING ACT, 2021 .......................................................... 23
PRAYER .................................................................................................................................... 25

-MEMORANDUM for THE RESPONDENTS-

 Page 3 of 25

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases

Dukhtar Jahan v. Mohammed Farooq (1987) 1 SCC 624 ..................................................... 19

Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal (1993) 3 SCC 418 ................................................. 19
Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr. (2004) 6 SCC 254 ........................ 11
Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr. (2004) 6 SCC 254. ....................... 11
Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works v. State of Mysore, AIR 1963 SC 589 : 1963 Supp (1) SCR
275 .................................................................................................................................. 12
Mohd. Saeed Siddiqui v. State of U.P., (2014) 11 SCC 41 ................................................... 13
Mohd. Saeed Siddiqui v. State of U.P., (2014) 11 SCC 415 ................................................. 13
Santosh Kumar Singh v. State (2010)7 SCC 263 ................................................................. 18
Selvi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.AIR 2010 SC 1974 ............................................. 18
Sharda v. Dharmpal (2003) 4 SCC 493................................................................................ 19
Shri Rohit Shekhar vs Shri Narayan Dutt Tiwari and Anr, (2012) 12 SCC 55 ...................... 19
State of Bombay v. Kathikalu AIR 1961 SC 1808 ............................................................... 18
Surendra Koli v. State of U.P. (2011) 4 SCC 80 .................................................................. 18
Sushil Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2014) 4 SCC 317, .................................................. 18
Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal v. State of Bihar, (2016) 3 SCC 183 ............................................ 14

Statutes

Constitution of India, Art. 122:............................................................................................ 11

Explanation (a), Sec. 53, Cr.P.C, 1973 ................................................................................ 17
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Sec. 112 .................................................................................... 19
Indian Evidence Act,1872 Sec. 45 ....................................................................................... 17

Other Authorities

“Report No. 271: Human DNA Profiling- A draft Bill for the Use and Regulation of DNA-
Based Technology”, Law Commission of India, July 2017,
http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/Report271.pdf ............................................... 15
Dr. Ranjit Sil, ESTABLISHMENT OF DNA DATABANK IN INDIA: A LEGAL
ANALYSIS, RP-RS-07
VOLUME 1 2021, pages 50-64 ....................................................................................... 20
Justice (Retd.) Ruma Pal, Separation of Powers, The Oxford Handbook of the Indian
Constitution; PRS ............................................................................................................ 10

-MEMORANDUM for THE RESPONDENTS-

 Page 4 of 25

Pratik Datta, Shefali Malhotra & Shivangi Tyagi, JUDICIAL REVIEW AND MONEY BILLS,
Available at: https://macrofinance.nipfp.org.in/PDF/PSS2017_judicial-review_and_money-
bills.pdf ........................................................................................................................... 12
PRS Legislative research, Available at:
https://prsindia.org/files/parliament/discussion_papers/Parliament%20and%20Judiciary.pdf
........................................................................................................................................ 10

Article

“DNA Technology in Forensic Science”, Committee on DNA Technology in Forensic Science,

United States of America, 1992 ....................................................................................... 15
“Nothing to Hide, nothing to fear?”, Human Genetics Commissions, United Kingdom,
November 2009 ............................................................................................................... 15
International journal of law management and humanities, [Vol. 5 Issue 1; 2043], page 2 (2022)
........................................................................................................................................ 21
US Interpol’s Global DNA Profiling Survey Results 2016, Available at:
https://www.interpol.int/content/download/15469/file/INTERPOL%20Global%20DNA%2
0Profiling%20Survey%20Results%202019.pdf (Last visited on August 8, 2022 .............. 15

Online Sources

Dr K.Jayanth Murali, an IPS officer, DNA database in India increases government

responsibilities, https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/in-other-news/250818/dna-
database-in-india-increases-govt-responsibilities.html (Last visited on August 9, 2022 .... 16
Pavitra K.M, ‘Data: the number of missing children increases to 1.2 lakh in 2019’(2020) <
https://factly.in/data-number-of-missing-children-cases-increase-to-1-2-lakh-in-2019/>
(Last visited on August 9, 2022) ...................................................................................... 16
Sadhana Swaminathan, establishing a National DNA Database in India,
https://ylcube.com/l/blog-posts/blogs-collection-0/2022/06/04/establishing-national-dna-
database-india/ (Last visited on August 9, 2022 ............................................................... 16
SSC Online Blog, Challenges and Concerns in Admission of DNA Evidence in India: With
Special Reference to DNA Technology (Use and Application) Regulation Bill, 2019,
https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2022/04/06/challenges-and-concerns-in-admission-
of-dna-evidence-in-india/ ................................................................................................. 21

-MEMORANDUM for THE RESPONDENTS-

 Page 5 of 25

The Tribune, DNA data bank still a work in progress,

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/features/dna-data-bank-still-a-work-in-progress-
390888 (Last visited on August 9, 2022 ........................................................................... 16

Constitutional Provisions

Art. 51A(h) of The Constitution of India ............................................................................. 17

Art. 51A(j) of The Constitution of India .............................................................................. 17
Article 122, Constitution of India ........................................................................................ 11

Books Referred

MP JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTION LAW (8TH ED. 2018) .

PS PILLAI, CRIMINAL LAW (13TH ED. 2017).

V.N. SHUKLA, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (12TH ED. 2016).

THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 (BARE ACT) UNIVERSAL LAW PUBLICATION.

INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 (BARE ACT) UNIVERSAL LAW PUBLICATION.

BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (10TH ED. 2015).

H.M. SEERVAI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA (4TH ED. 2010).

RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL'S THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (ACT II OF

1974), ENGLISH: 19TH ED.

BATUK LAL, THE LAW OF EVIDENCE 23rd EDITION, 2020.

THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 (BARE ACT) UNIVERSAL LAW PUBLICATION.

-MEMORANDUM for THE RESPONDENTS-

 Page 6 of 25

STATEMEN OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner no. 1 and 2 have been filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution of Morris. The
petitions are clubbed together by virtue of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
Morris. The Hon’ble Court has the requisite jurisdiction for the adjudication of the present
dispute.

Thereby, the Petitioner submits this memorial which sets forth the facts and the laws on
which the claims are based.

“Article 32- Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement
of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including
writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and
certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights
conferred by this Part
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 ) and (
2 ), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of
its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (
2)
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise
provided for by this Constitution.”

-MEMORANDUM for THE RESPONDENTS-

 Page 7 of 25

STATEMENT OF FACTS
Part A

Morris is one of the most disaster-prone countries in the world due to its geographical
conditions. It is situated near one of major earth’s fault lines, due to which earthquakes, tsunami
and landslides are frequent in Morris. Numerous Morrissians have been displaced or presumed
to be dead in the last ten years due to these natural disasters.

II

In the year 2019- the 9th General Assembly election took place in the Morris in which the
Lock Party came into power under the leadership of Ms.Ravina. Once Ms.Ravina took charge
as the Prime Minister of Morris, she appointed Mr. J.J Smith and Mr. Alex Neo amongst others
as the Union Minister for Home Affairs and Union Minister for Electronic and Information
Technology respectively.

III

March, 2020- Mr. Smith and Mr. Neo proposed the creation of a centralized DNA database as
a solution for the identification of deceased and displaced in natural disasters and to ensure
better law enforcement and convictions in criminal cases.

In June, 2020- the cabinet approved the draft Bill titled “Morris DNA Profiling Bill (MDPA),
2020”. Mr. Neo introduced the Bill in the lower house of the Union Legislature. MDPA bill
was introduced as a money bill to which the opposition parties raised objections. The Speaker
of the lower house, Mr. John Wick, held that the introduction of the Bill as a money Bill is
procedurally correct. The Bill was passed by the lower house with majority.

IV

Since the required quorum wasn’t available for the 14 days, the Bill was deemed to be passed
by both the houses. The Bill was sent to President Garuda for his approval and was signed on
9th January, 2021. Ms. Reena, the Leader of the Opposition party approached the Supreme
Court of Morris challenging the Morris DNA Profiling Act, 2021(Annexure I) on the basis of
procedural irregularities which were patently illegal. The Supreme Court admitted the matter
but gave the date for hearing after one year.

-MEMORANDUM for THE RESPONDENTS-

 Page 8 of 25

Part B

9th September, 2021- While returning from a late-night party Dr.Ravi was arrested and
convicted for drunk and reckless driving. As per the Rules for the Regulation of
Collection, Storage and Destruction of Human DNA obtained for Criminal Investigation,
2021(Annexure II) under the Morris DNA Profiling Act,2021, DNA samples were
collected from him. Dr.Ravi vehemently opposed the collection of DNA sample but was
coerced by the police officials to cooperate.
The very next day he wrote a scathing blogpost on the immorality and illegality of the
DNA collection process under the Morris DNA Profiling Act, 2021. This blogpost was
re-published in the Op-Ed page of a well-read national newspaper named “Moonlight”.
II
14th March, 2022- Ms. Pennywise, a doctorate student at the National University of
Morris was raped and killed inside the premises of the University campus. The forensic
consultant handed over the DNA material found on body of the deceased to the
Investigating Officer, ACP Chandu. While running the profile through the Centralized
DNA Bank they arrived at a very high percentage of similarity matches with the DNA
record of Dr.Ravi. As Dr.Ravi is a professor at the National University of Morris the ACP
was convinced that he was the perpetrator of the murder.
III
Dr.Ravi was delivering a lecture on the “Value of “Agree to Disagree” in a Democracy”,
to a gathering of NGO’s and civil society when the police entered the premises with an
arrest warrant and arrested him in public. There was widespread shock and anger in the
society against Dr.Ravi who was remanded to further judicial custody.
16th June, 2022- Mr. Pavi, the twin brother of Dr.Ravi, he confessed that he had murdered
Ms. Pennywise when she refused to accept his proposal for marriage. After arresting
Mr.Pavi, ACP Chandu admitted that the arrest of Dr.Ravi was an error in decision and
that the false positive of DNA material was due to the similar DNA genes in twin brothers.
IV
Once Dr.Ravi was released, he challenged the MDPA, 2021 and the Rules as violative of
the constitution of Morris.

-MEMORANDUM for THE RESPONDENTS-

 Page 9 of 25

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

The Supreme Court of Morris have framed the following issues for its consideration:

1. Whether the Supreme Court have the jurisdiction to investigate the

Parliamentary Procedure involved in passing of the Morris DNA Profiling Act,
2021?

2. Whether Morris DNA Profiling Act, 2021 and the Rules made there under the
Act violative of the provisions of the Constitution of Morris?

3. Whether there is any excessive delegation of powers under the scheme of Morris
DNA Profiling Act, 2021?

-MEMORANDUM for THE RESPONDENTS-

 Page 10 of 25

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether the Supreme Court have the jurisdiction to investigate the Parliamentary
Procedure involved in passing of the Morris DNA Profiling Act, 2021.

It is submitted that the Constitution provides for a separation of powers between

Parliament and the Judiciary by demarcating their roles and responsibilities. It
recognises separate legislative, executive, and judicial bodies, but allows some overlap
in powers. It is further submitted that the member of the Upper House and the Leader
of Opposition does not have Locus Standi to file this petition, as the person is not in
any way being aggrieved by the enactment of the MDPA Act. In various judgments of
the Supreme Court of Morris, the Supreme Court had ruled that a Speaker’s decision to
classify a draft statute as a money bill was not judicially reviewable, even if the
classification was incorrect, since the speaker’s mistake constituted nothing more than
a mere procedural irregularity. This, in the end, the current legal position in Morris is
that the certification of a bill as ‘money bill’ by the Speaker is beyond the judicial
review powers of the Supreme Court.

2. Whether Morris DNA Profiling Act, 2021 and the Rules made there under the Act
violative of the provisions of the Constitution of Morris.

It is submitted that DNA-based technology can be used to aid criminal investigations,

DNA-based technology helps in identification of victims in the event of terrorist attacks
or natural disasters such as earthquakes. In addition, it is worth reminding that the ilt of
the rapists of ‘Nirbhaya’ was established by the Delhi police mainly with DNA
evidence. With the help of a huge database, law enforcement agencies can solve crimes
more efficiently. The Morris Judiciary has proved its vision in many cases, to reach the
truth and unravel the crimes with the help of Forensic evidences through the logic of
corroboration and circumstantial evidence. In the end, the administration of justice now
needs the assimilation of the scientific advancement of genetic profiling and developed
procedural techniques for harnessing the emerging juridical challenges.

3. Whether there is any excessive delegation of powers under the scheme of Morris
DNA Profiling Act, 2021.

It is submitted that, while most of the debate surrounding the Bill have reflected the
negative aspects of it rightly so, we believe that there are still a few positive aspects
that cannot be overlooked. The composition of the Board Committee is very diverse,
-MEMORANDUM for THE RESPONDENTS-
 Page 11 of 25

the Bill ensures that no unnecessary DNA profiles are kept in the databank especially
of those people who are neither a suspect nor an undertrial or an offender. It is further
submitted that, the MDPA puts an obligation on Board to adopt practices concerning
collection of samples which do not infringe the right to privacy of individuals and are
collected keeping in mind all ethical and human rights issues, including international
guidelines by UN, relating to DNA testing.

-MEMORANDUM for THE RESPONDENTS-

 Page 12 of 25

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO
INVESTIGATE THE PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE INVOLVED IN PASSING
OF THE MORRIS DNA PROFILING ACT, 2021?

a) Parliament, the Judiciary, and the Executive are the three key arms of the state, with
well-defined spheres of authority under the Constitution. Parliament represents the
law-making arm, the Executive is responsible for enforcement of laws, and the
Judiciary oversees interpretation of the Constitution and laws as well as dispute
resolution.
1.1. PARLIAMENT AND THE JUDICIARY: THE CONSTITUTIONAL
RELATIONSHIP:

a) The Constitution provides for a separation of powers between Parliament and the
Judiciary by demarcating their roles and responsibilities 1. It also lays down various
ways by which:

i. The Judiciary may guard against the unconstitutional exercise of

power by Parliament, and

ii. Parliament may legislate on or act as a check in matters related to

the Judiciary.

b) A rigid idea of separation of powers as exercised in the United States means that
institutions for law making, executive action and judicial power are distinct and do
not have overlapping powers. This enables them to exercise a check on each other.
However, the United Kingdom (UK) follows a looser model which is based on
supremacy of Parliament. No court of law in the UK can strike down a law on
grounds that it violates the UK Constitution. The courts may examine validity of
subordinate legislation against their parent laws and on other grounds. Morris
follows a third model of separation of powers. It recognises separate legislative,
executive, and judicial bodies, but allows some overlap in powers. For example, the
Executive may exercise legislative powers by promulgating ordinances.2

c) We urge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Morris that the present petition

1
PRS Legislative research, Available at:
https://prsindia.org/files/parliament/discussion_papers/Parliament%20and%20Judiciary.pdf
2
Justice (Retd.) Ruma Pal, Separation of Powers, The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution; PRS.

-MEMORANDUM for THE RESPONDENTS-

 Page 13 of 25

challenging the MDPA Act and the Procedure involved in passing of the said Act,
who is not affected by the passing of the Act as money bill, must not be entertained,
as it is stated in the Supreme Court judgment in Kusum Ingots and Alloy Ltd. v.
Union of India and Anr.3

d) The petitioner’s submission that it was only after the judgment was rendered by the
Supreme Court, on similar issue, did the petitioner thought it fit to challenge the
validity of the Act passing in the parliament which is clearly outside the purview of
the Judiciary which has been clearly stated in Article 122 of the Constitution of
Morris. 4

e) The member of the Upper House and the Leader of Opposition does not have
Locus Standi to file this petition, as the person is not in any way being aggrieved
by the enactment of the MDPA Act. We further going to state the Kusum Ingots
judgment5 wherein, para 21 the Supreme Court has stated as under:

a. "21. A parliamentary legislation when receives the assent of the President

of India and published in an Official Gazette, unless specifically excluded,
will apply to the entire territory of India. If passing of a legislation gives
rise to a cause of action, a writ petition questioning the constitutionality
thereof can be filed in any High Court of the country. It is not so done
because a cause of action will arise only when the provisions of the Act or
some of them which were implemented shall give rise to civil or evil
consequences to the petitioner. A writ court, it is well settled would not
determine a constitutional question in vacuum."

f) Further, parliamentary proceedings may not be called into question in any court of
law for irregularity of procedure so that a separation of powers is maintained. 6

3
Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr. (2004) 6 SCC 254.
4
Constitution of India, Art. 122:
Courts not to inquire into proceedings of Parliament
(1) The validity of any proceedings in Parliament shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged
irregularity of procedure
(2) No officer or member of Parliament in whom powers are vested by or under this Constitution for regulating
procedure or the conduct of business, or for maintaining order, in Parliament shall be subject to the jurisdiction
of any court in respect of the exercise by him of those powers CHAPTER III LEGISLATIVE POWERS OF THE
PRESIDENT
5
Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr. (2004) 6 SCC 254.
6
Article 122, Constitution of India

-MEMORANDUM for THE RESPONDENTS-

 Page 14 of 25

1.2. SUPREME COURT ON PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITIES:

a) The scope of Article 122 of the Morris Constitution has come up before the
Supreme Court in matters concerning the powers, privileges, and immunities of the
Parliament as well as State Legislatures, and their respective members under
Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution of Morris respectively. In these cases, the
Supreme Court has consistently distinguished the phrase “irregularity of procedure”
in Articles 122 and 212 from “procedural illegality”–a term coined by the Court
itself. The Supreme Court has sought to distinguish between “procedural
irregularity” and “procedural illegality,” holding that “procedural illegality” is
subject to judicial review while “procedural irregularity” is not.7

b) The Supreme Court has on three previous occasions dealt with the question of
whether it can exercise its judicial review powers in case of breach of the
constitutional procedures in passing money bills. 8 Each time, the answer has been
in the negative.

c) In Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works,9 the court had found that the Indian Coinage
(Amendment) Act, which introduced a new system of coinage, was not a taxing
measure. The petitioners had argued that through the substitution of 2 naya paisas
in place of 3 pies as tax, there was a change in the tax imposed by the Mysore Sales
Tax Act, which could only have been done by passing a Money Bill under Articles
198, 199 and 207 of the Constitution. Since no money bill had been introduced, the
Act itself, the petitioners argued was illegal and invalid. It was in those
circumstances, having found that a substitution of coinage did not result in an
enhancement of tax, that the court ruled that Article 199 was simply not attracted.

d) The further observation made by the court that the, “Even assuming that it is a
taxing measure its validity cannot be challenged on the ground that it offends Arts.
197 to 199 and the procedure laid down in Art. 202 of the Constitution. Article 212
prohibits the validity of any proceedings in a legislature of a State from being called

7
Pratik Datta, Shefali Malhotra & Shivangi Tyagi, JUDICIAL REVIEW AND MONEY BILLS, Available at:
https://macrofinance.nipfp.org.in/PDF/PSS2017_judicial-review_and_money-bills.pdf
8
All these cases pertain to the procedure of passing money bills in the State legislature. However, since the
provisions are in pari materia with the ones on the procedure of passing money bills in the Parliament, these cases
laws are valid precedents for both. See Constitution of India, Arts. 109, 110, 111, 122, 198, 199, 200, 212, 255.
(Arts. 109, 110, 111 and 122 for money bills in the Parliament correspond to Arts. 198, 199, 200 and 212 for
money bills in the State Legislature. Art. 255 is applicable to both central and state laws).
9
Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works v. State of Mysore, AIR 1963 SC 589 : 1963 Supp (1) SCR 275.

-MEMORANDUM for THE RESPONDENTS-

 Page 15 of 25

in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure and Art. 255 lays
down the requirements as to recommendation and previous sanction are to be
regarded as matters of procedure only.”10

e) In 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court, in Mohd. Saeed Siddiqui v. State of UP11,
we consider the issue by first answering the question of whether a speaker’s
decision under Article 110 is judicially reviewable or not.

f) In Siddiqui, the question before the court concerned a categorisation made under
Article 199 of the Constitution, which defines a money bill for the purposes of state
legislatures. The provision is in pari materia with Article 110, and, as such, any
decision made interpreting Article 199 ought to apply directly to Article 110 too.
There, the Supreme Court had ruled that a Speaker’s decision to classify a draft
statute as a money bill was not judicially reviewable, even if the classification was
incorrect, since the speaker’s mistake constituted nothing more than a mere
procedural irregularity.

g) The Court develop the following principles:

i. The validity of an Act cannot be challenged on the ground that it

offends Articles 197 to 199 and the procedure laid down in Article
202;

ii. Article 212 prohibits the validity of any proceedings in a Legislature

of a State from being called in question on the ground of any alleged
irregularity of procedure; and

iii. Article 255 lays down that the requirements as to recommendation

and previous sanction are to be regarded as a matter of procedure
only. 12

h) It is further held that the validity of the proceedings inside the Legislature of a State
cannot be called in question on the allegation that the procedure laid down by the
law has not been strictly followed and that no Court can go into those questions
which are within the special jurisdiction of the Legislature itself, which has the
power to conduct its own business.

10
Supra 9.
11
Mohd. Saeed Siddiqui v. State of U.P., (2014) 11 SCC 415.
12
Id.

-MEMORANDUM for THE RESPONDENTS-

 Page 16 of 25

i) A Division Bench of the Supreme Court in Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal v. State of

Bihar13 was called upon to decide on the constitutionality of Orissa Special Courts
Act, 2006. The statute was challenged inter alia on the ground that it did not qualify
to be passed as a money bill. The Court brushed aside the appellant’s plea to review
the Speaker’s certification of the bill as a ‘money bill’ with the following
observation: “In our considered opinion, the authorities cited by the learned
Counsel for the Appellants do not render much assistance, for the introduction of a
bill, as has been held in Mohd. Saeed Siddiqui, comes within the concept of
‘irregularity’ and it does come with the realm of substantiality. What has been held
in the Special Reference No. 1 of 1964 (supra) must be appositely understood. The
factual matrix therein was totally different than the case at hand as we find that the
present controversy is wholly covered by the pronouncement in Mohd. Saeed
Siddiqui and hence, we unhesitatingly hold that there is no merit in the submission
so assiduously urged by the learned Counsel for the Appellants.”14

j) Because of these three decisions of the Supreme Court, the current legal position in
Morris is that the certification of a bill as ‘money bill’ by the Speaker is beyond the
judicial review powers of the Supreme Court.

k) We humbly request the Hon’ble Supreme Court the dismiss this Petition as there is
no locus on part of Ms. Reena who has not been affected by the enactment of the
Morris DNA Profiling Act, 2021 and its procedural irregulaties is out of the
purview of the judiciary.

13
Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal v. State of Bihar, (2016) 3 SCC 183.
14
Id., ¶43

-MEMORANDUM for THE RESPONDENTS-

 Page 17 of 25

2. WHETHER MORRIS DNA PROFILING ACT, 2021 AND THE RULES MADE
THERE UNDER THE ACT VIOLATIVE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF MORRIS:
a) The Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) is a set of instructions found in a cell. These
instructions are used for the growth and development of an organism. The DNA of a
person is unique, and variation in the sequence of DNA can be used to match
individuals and identify them. 15 DNA technology, therefore allows for accurate
establishment of an individual’s identity.

b) DNA-based technology can be used to aid criminal investigations. For example, the
identity of a criminal offender may be determined by matching DNA found at the crime
scene with the DNA of a suspect.16 In addition, DNA-based technology helps in
identification of victims in the event of terrorist attacks or natural disasters such as
earthquakes. For example, DNA technology has been used to identify victims of
terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre in 2001, and disasters such as the Asian
tsunami in 2004.17 Further, DNA profiling can be used in civil matters, such as
parentage related disputes.
2.1. GLOBAL SCENARIO REGARDING DNA DATABASE:

a) According to US Interpol’s Global DNA Profiling Survey Results 2016 18, as many
as 69 countries have a national DNA database, including the US, Canada, and
China. Together, the countries hold genetic information of at least 35,413,155
individuals.

b) Morris is among the 84 countries that use DNA profiling in criminal investigations,
but do not store the DNA information in a centralized database, according to the
report.

c) Around 70 countries, including the US, UK, Canada, Malaysia, South Africa and
Australia, have DNA data banks. This helps them investigate criminal cases and
expedite justice. The Royal Malaysia Police has analyzed and accumulated more

15
“DNA Technology in Forensic Science”, Committee on DNA Technology in Forensic Science, United States
of America, 1992.
16
“Report No. 271: Human DNA Profiling- A draft Bill for the Use and Regulation of DNA-Based Technology”,
Law Commission of India, July 2017, http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/Report271.pdf
17
“Nothing to Hide, nothing to fear?”, Human Genetics Commissions, United Kingdom, November 2009.
18
US Interpol’s Global DNA Profiling Survey Results 2016, Available at:
https://www.interpol.int/content/download/15469/file/INTERPOL%20Global%20DNA%20Profiling%20Surve
y%20Results%202019.pdf (Last visited on August 8, 2022)

-MEMORANDUM for THE RESPONDENTS-

 Page 18 of 25

than 1,39,000 DNA profiles in the national data bank since 2013. During the
initial year there were only 13,000 DNA Profiles, resulting in two matches
whereas in 2018, one lakh profiles were successfully uploaded to the Malaysian
database, leading to 33 DNA Matches.19

d) The first government database, “The National DNA Data Base” (NDNAD) was set
up in the UK in 1995. France set up its database in 1998.FBI in the United States of
America, in 1998 assembled a “Combined DNA Index System” (CODIS) database.
The DNA database of US has over nine million records which are almost similar in
size to the database of UK. 20

e) In 2019, over 73,138 children were reported missing, with 71% of them being
girls21. A national DNA with a separate missing person’s index can help reunite the
missing individuals with their families. It can be extremely useful in nabbing
criminals, especially in sexual assault crimes. It is worth reminding that the ilt of
the rapists of ‘Nirbhaya’ was established by the Delhi police mainly with DNA
evidence. With the help of a huge database, law enforcement agencies can solve
crimes more efficiently. 22
2.2. NOT VIOLATIVE OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS UNDER ART. 20(3)
AND RIGHT TO PRIVACY:

a) Evidence is very crucial for ruling out suspects, finding criminals, and proving their
guilt. Major advances in forensics and investigation practice, have made it possible
to dig up various types of evidence that are admissible in court and bring police
closer to catching criminals. Examples of the most incriminating types of evidence
are Fingerprint, Blood, Hair, Skin, Witness Testimony, Written Documents, Semen,
Shoe Prints, Videotapes/Photographs, and Ballistics etc.

b) Generally, forensic evidences are considered as scientific evidence that is beyond

the scope of knowledge that judges and juries possess, and therefore, when the

19
The Tribune, DNA data bank still a work in progress, https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/features/dna-data-
bank-still-a-work-in-progress-390888 (Last visited on August 9, 2022)
20
Dr K.Jayanth Murali, an IPS officer, DNA database in India increases government responsibilities,
https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/in-other-news/250818/dna-database-in-india-increases-govt-
responsibilities.html (Last visited on August 9, 2022)
21
Pavitra K.M, ‘Data: the number of missing children increases to 1.2 lakh in 2019’(2020) < https://factly.in/data-
number-of-missing-children-cases-increase-to-1-2-lakh-in-2019/> (Last visited on August 9, 2022)
22
Sadhana Swaminathan, establishing a National DNA Database in India, https://ylcube.com/l/blog-posts/blogs-
collection-0/2022/06/04/establishing-national-dna-database-india/ (Last visited on August 9, 2022)

-MEMORANDUM for THE RESPONDENTS-

 Page 19 of 25

Court is convinced that such scientific evidences are required to be introduced

before the court or trial as factual evidence, the Court may require the opinion of an
expert on the relevant point.23

c) In Morris the legal position as regards the application of forensic technique must
pass through a three-fold litmus test,

a. Firstly, the Constitutional validity of such test,

b. Secondly, the evidentiary value of the forensic information obtained from

the expert, and

c. Finally, in the absence of any concrete legislation, judicial stand on

admissibility of DNA forensics.

d) At present in Morris Sections 53, 53A, 54, 164A, 174, 176, 291, 293 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 9, 45, 46, 47, 51 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872; Article 51A (h) 24 and (j)25, Article 20(3), Article 21of the Constitution of
Morris, govern science and technology issues involved in forensic science in the
realm of criminal and civil administration of justice matters to some extent. It
should be noted that the Explanation26 to Sections 53,54 and 54 of the Code of Cr.
P. C. 1973 was amended in 2005 to clarify the scope of medical examination of the
accused, especially concerning the extraction of bodily substances, and in
particular, to use DNA profile techniques.

e) DNA technology is the latest method of forensic science, it provides a tremendous

amount of information to the investigating officers that enable them to find out the
criminal from evidence left at the crime scene.

f) The foremost challenge before the court was to decide the constitutional validity of
submitting specimens for forensic examination under Article 20(3) of the

23
Indian Evidence Act,1872 Sec. 45.
24
Art. 51A(h) of The Constitution of India says that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to develop the
scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform.
25
Art. 51A(j) of The Constitution of India says that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to strive towards
excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of
endeavour and achievement.
26
Explanation (a), Sec. 53, Cr.P.C, 1973- “examination” shall include the examination of blood, stains, semen,
swabs in case of sexual offences, sputum and sweat, hair samples and finger nail clippings by the use of modern
and scientific techniques including DNA profiling and such other tests which the registered medical practitioner
thinks necessary in a particular case.

-MEMORANDUM for THE RESPONDENTS-

 Page 20 of 25

Constitution of Morris. The answer was given in State of Bombay vs Kathikalu27

where it was held that “giving the specimen and information for forensic
examination is just like providing relevant facts within the meaning of Sections 9
and 11 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and it does not fall under the parameter of
evidence against oneself”. The Supreme Court has also held that being compelled
to give fingerprints does not violate the constitutional safeguards given under
Article 20(3) of the Constitution of Morris. In Selvi & Ors. vs State of Karnataka
& Anr.28

g) As regards the application of DNA profiling two popular cases namely, Santosh
Kumar Singh vs State29 where the rape and murder of a law student, Priyadarshini
Mattoo by Santosh Kumar Singh, son of an IPS officer, became a piece of
sensational news after he was acquitted by a trial court in 1999 and subsequently,
Delhi High Court convicted and sentenced him to death based on DNA evidence
found on the undergarments of the victim, although the Supreme Court commuted
his sentence to life imprisonment;

h) And another Surendra Koli vs State of U.P.30 where DNA test was used to identify
dead bodies of victims. In another case Sushil Sharma vs State (NCT of Delhi),31
popularly known as the Tandoor Murder case, Forensic Scientist played a pivotal
role in unraveling the mystifies of the crime.

i) The Delhi Gang Rape Case or the Nirbhaya Case or the Damini Case which took
place in 2013 is another set of examples where the Hon’ble Supreme Court accepted
the admissibility of DNA testing. All the accused were sentenced to death based on
the dying declaration of the victim and DNA evidence.

j) The call for DNA test on civil cases is generally made to settle the paternity issue
involved in cases of divorce, maintenance, inheritance, and succession, etc. For
determining the legitimacy of a child born during wedlock, the presumption under

27
State of Bombay v. Kathikalu AIR 1961 SC 1808.
28
Selvi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.AIR 2010 SC 1974.
29
Santosh Kumar Singh v. State (2010)7 SCC 263.
30
Surendra Koli v. State of U.P. (2011) 4 SCC 80.
31
Sushil Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2014) 4 SCC 317,
-Even in Shiney Ahuja Rape Case, during the trial the maid whom the Bollywood actor had allegedly raped, turned
hostile and claimed she was not raped, Ahuja was convicted nonetheless as DNA samples taken from the woman’s
private parts matched his DNA sample that was taken.

-MEMORANDUM for THE RESPONDENTS-

 Page 21 of 25

the relevant provision of law 32 is conclusive, provided the only ground to rebut this
presumption is non-access of the husband. The Supreme Court observed that “the
standard of proof in such cases must at least be of a degree in between the two as
to ensure that there was no possibility of the child being conceived through the
plaintiff’s husband.”

k) In Goutam Kundu vs State of West Bengal33, this Court after considering an early
three-judge Bench decision in Dukhtar Jahan vs Mohammed Farooq,34 held that
“this presumption can only be displaced by a strong preponderance of evidence and
not by a mere balance of probabilities.”

l) A full Bench of the Supreme Court in Sharda vs Dharmpal,35 The Court summed
up three significant conclusions- “a matrimonial court has the power to order a
person to undergo medical test; Passing of such order by the court would not be in
violation of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of
Morris; However, the court should use such a power if the applicant has a strong
prima facie case and there is sufficient material before the court; If despite the
order of the court, the respondent refuses to submit himself to medical examination,
the court will be entitled to draw an adverse inference against the respondent”.

m) Worthy to mention the judgment of the Delhi High in Shri Rohit Shekhar vs Shri
Narayan Dutt Tiwari and Anr36, in which case the court has gone a step further
and ordered DNA tests on the respondent, a third party to the marriage, primarily
recognizing from various international covenants, the right of a child to know his
biological antecedents. In this case, the Court, with due caution and respecting the
judgments of the Supreme Court37, justified the reason and prima facie case for
ordering the DNA test.

n) In absence of any proper legislation, the Morris Judiciary has proved its vision in
many cases, though the number is very minimum, to reach the truth and unravel the
crimes with the help of Forensic evidences through the logic of corroboration and
circumstantial evidence. Therefore, the Morris DNA Profiling Act, 2021 the need

32
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Sec. 112.
33
Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal (1993) 3 SCC 418.
34
Dukhtar Jahan v. Mohammed Farooq (1987) 1 SCC 624.
35
Sharda v. Dharmpal (2003) 4 SCC 493.
36
Shri Rohit Shekhar vs Shri Narayan Dutt Tiwari and Anr, (2012) 12 SCC 554
37
Supra note 16.

-MEMORANDUM for THE RESPONDENTS-

 Page 22 of 25

of the hour to assist the judiciary in successfully administering both civil and
criminal justice delivery for the society. The significant paradigms of DNA
profiling cannot be left alone to the courts to adjudicate with the temporary tailor-
made solution. The administration of justice now needs the assimilation of the
scientific advancement of genetic profiling and developed procedural techniques
for harnessing the emerging juridical challenges. 38

38
Dr. Ranjit Sil, ESTABLISHMENT OF DNA DATABANK IN INDIA: A LEGAL ANALYSIS, RP-RS-07
VOLUME 1 2021, pages 50-64.

-MEMORANDUM for THE RESPONDENTS-

 Page 23 of 25

3. WHETHER THERE IS ANY EXCESSIVE DELEGATION OF POWERS UNDER

THE SCHEME OF MORRIS DNA PROFILING ACT, 2021

a) Delegated Legislation is a term which covers the vast amount of Legislation made by
Government Agencies under authority of Acts of Parliaments, which delegate this
power to agencies39.

b) While most of the debate surrounding the MDPA have reflected the negative aspects of
it rightly so, we believe that there are still a few positive aspects that cannot be
overlooked.

c) Firstly, the composition of the Board Committee is very diverse. 40 In any regulatory
body, it is essential to have members who have the required expertise in the field and
can put an independent thought over the functioning of the Board and not get influenced
by the executive, which as a matter of fact, does happen in many Board Committees.

d) The MDPA provides for a regulatory body which comprises people not only belonging
to the scientific or forensic field but also those who represent human rights groups
(National Human Rights Commission of Morris) and investigating agencies (National
Investigating Agency) who are directly involved in investigating crime scenes. 41

e) The MDPA ensures that no unnecessary DNA profiles are kept in the databank
especially of those people who are neither a suspect nor an undertrial or an offender.
Moreover, it has given an option to a citizen whose profile has been entered in the
databank to get the information removed by writing to the databank. Even for those
whose profile has been retained the communication of such profiles has been kept to
very limited number of authorities and any violation of the same has been penalised.

f) This measure is likely to reduce any misuse of the profiles saved in the databank. This
can also be understood as an extension of the principle of “right to be forgotten” under
right to privacy.

g) The MDPA puts an obligation on Board to adopt practices concerning collection of

samples which do not infringe the right to privacy of individuals and are collected

39
International journal of law management and humanities, [Vol. 5 Issue 1; 2043], page 2 (2022).
40
SSC Online Blog, Challenges and Concerns in Admission of DNA Evidence in India: With Special Reference to
DNA Technology (Use and Application) Regulation Bill, 2019,
https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2022/04/06/challenges-and-concerns-in-admission-of-dna-evidence-in-
india/
41
Id.

-MEMORANDUM for THE RESPONDENTS-

 Page 24 of 25

keeping in mind all ethical and human rights issues, including international guidelines
by UN, relating to DNA testing.

h) This function is not just restricted to the Board but also provides for giving
recommendation to the Government for the application of privacy protection in relation
to the access to, or the use of, DNA samples and their analyses and other matters related
to it.

i) The general provisions of this MDPA have been framed in consultation with the Law
Ministry and the Law Commission of Morris, and all necessary Clauses have been
incorporated based on the existing judgements and provisions which exist in other
recently enacted laws. Procedural details are covered under the Rules and regulations.42
Hence the Morris DNA Profiling Act, 2021 does not have any excessive delegation of
powers to the executive.

42
Annexure II, RULES FOR THE REGULATION OF COLLECTION, STORAGE AND DESTRUCTIION
OF HUMAN DNA OBTAINED FOR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, 2021.

-MEMORANDUM for THE RESPONDENTS-

 Page 25 of 25

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the lights of the facts stated, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
most humbly prayed and implored before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Morris, that it
may be graciously pleased to adjudge and declare that:

1. That the MDPA does not have any procedural illegalities.

2. That the MDPA does not violate any constitutional provisions of Morris.

3. That the MDPA does not contain Excessive Delegation.

Also, pass any order that the Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the favour of THE
RESPONDENT to meet the ends of equity, justice, and good conscience.

For this act of Kindness, the Petitioner shall duty-bound forever pray.

Place: S/d
Dated: COUNSELS for the RESPONDENT

-MEMORANDUM for THE RESPONDENTS-