—————————————————————————————————————

MULTI MOOT
—————————————————————————————————————
IN THE HONORABLE HIGH COURT OF THE MEHULA
—————————————————————————————————————

WRIT PETITION NO……2023

Mrs. Bhamini Fathima………………………………...Petitioner No.1

v.
Union of Estancia………………………………...Respondent No. 1

—————————————————————————————————————

Most respectfully submitted before the the Hon’ble Chief Justice and companion
Judges of the High court of the estancia.

—————————————————————————————————————

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSELS FOR THE RESPONDENT
MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
 1

S.NO CONTENT PAGE NO:

1. List of Abbreviations 2

2. Index of Authorities 3,4

3. Statement of jurisdiction 5

4. Statement of facts 6,7

5. Statement of issues 8

5. Summary of Arguments 9

6. Arguments Advanced 10 to 22

7. Prayer 23
 2

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR All India Reporter

A.P. Andhra Pradesh

Anr. Another

Art. Article

Bom. Bombay

Cri. LJ Criminal Law Journal

Cr.P.C. Criminal Procedure Code

ed. Edition

FIR First Information Report

HC High Court

H.P. Himachal Pradesh

Hrs. Hours

Hon’ble Honourable

I.L.R. Indian Law Reporter

IPC Indian Penal Code

Mad. Madras

M.P. Madhya Pradesh

Ors. Others

SC Supreme court
 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

BOOKS REFERRED:

1)INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW:

1. JAIN M.P, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (6th​ed. 2010).

2. BASU D.D, COMMENTARY ON CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (8th​ed. 2009).
3. PANDEY J.N, THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA (49th​ed. 2012).
4. BAKSHI P.M, THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (11th​ed. 2011).
5. SHUKLA V.N, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (11th​ed. 2012).

2)INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860:

1. RATANLAL AND DHIRAJLAL,INDIAN PENAL CODE(2nd VOLUME).
2. PADALA RAMA REDDI,INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860(31st EDITION)
3. K.A.PANDEY ,PENAL LAW(FIFTH EDITION)
4. DR.S.R.MYNENI,LAW OF CRIMES[IPC1860](3rd EDITION)

3)CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE:

1. DR.N.V.PARANJAPE,THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
2. S,N.MISRA,THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,1973(VOLUME 1)
3. R.V.KELKAR’S,CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (SIXTH EDITION)
4. K.KANNAN AND ANJANA PRAKASH,THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
(23RD EDITION)

STATUTES REFERRED:
1. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950
2. INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860
3. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ,1973
 4

4. THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (IDENTIFICATION) ACT, 2022

CASES REFERRED:

1. Asha Sharma v. Chandigarh Administration, (2011) 10 SCC 86.

2. K.R. Lakshmanan v. State of T.N.1996 AIR 1153, 1996 SCC (2) 226.
3. State of A.P. v/s McDowell & Co.,1996 AL 1627.
4. ML Kamra v New India Assurance 1992 AIR 1072.
5. RC Cooper v. Union of India (1970) 1 SCC 248.
6. M.P. Sharma vs Satish Chandra AIR 1954 SC 300.
7. Amrit Singh v. State of Punjab (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 41.
8. State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad AIR 1961 SC 1808.
9. Rakesh Bisht v. C.B.I. 2007 (1) JCC 482 and MANU/DE/0338/2007
10. Selvi vs. State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263.
11. Ritesh Sinha v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (2019) 8 SCC 1.
12. Kymlickan Code of Criminal Procedure Act, Acts of Parliament, 1973
13. Selvi v. the State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263,
14. Asha Sharma v. Chandigarh Administration, (2011) 10 SCC 86.
15. K.R. Lakshmanan v. State of T.N.1996 AIR 1153, 1996 SCC (2) 226.
16. State of A.P. v/s McDowell & Co., 1996 AL 1627.

WEBSITES REFERRED:

1. www.indiankanoon.com
2. www.legalservicesindia.com
3. www.legalblog.in
4. www.judis.nic.in
5. www.lawyersclubindia.com
6. www.menrightsindia.net
 5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Counsel for the Petitioner humbly submits to the Honourable High Court of Mehula
that it has jurisdiction to inquire and try this case, under Article 226 of the Constitution
of Estancia, 1950

Power of High Courts to issue certain writs.

(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers,
throughout the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to
any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within
those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas
corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for
the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other
purpose,
(2) The power conferred by clause ( 1 ) to issue directions, orders or writs to any
Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court
exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of
action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding
that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not
within those territories.
 6

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Background of Petitioner herein - Mrs. Bhamini Fathima works in fulltime with

She-Taxi company as a driver. She has gained a lot of attention in the histogram
platform (social media) where she has around 50k followers. She has molded herself
into a woman influencer as a lady taxi driver, who inspires many young girls and
women of the present generation. She is married with Mr.Chandra and has a daughter.
2. Mr.Lucky Singh’s Arrival
a. 18/10/2022,10:00am - Petitioner was assigned to pick up Mr. Lucky Singh, one
of the follower of Petitioner in Histogram from the airport. Mr. Lucky Singh
keeps chatting continuously throughout the trip which added to Bhamini’s
dismay. Mr. Lucky Singh conveyed his wishes and stated that he has recently
bought an apartment in the neighborhood, which coincidentally happened to be
one of the apartments in Bhamini’s gated community.
b. 18/10/2022,04:00pm - Mr.Lucky Singh visited petitioner’s apartment without
any prior invite for celebration with some delicious food for Petitioner’s family.
Petitioner, was highly annoyed at Lucky's eagerness to barge into her home
when all she wants is to celebrate her anniversary with her husband and
daughter.
3. Murder of Mr.Chandra and his daughter.
a. 18/10/2022,06:00 pm - Petitioner agreed to help as Mr.Lucky asked and
informed him that she will drop him at the airport after offering her evening
prayers.Meanwhile Mr.Lucky Singh ends up killing Mr. Chandra and his
daughter cold-bloodedly while Mrs.Bhamini was offering her prayers. He hides
their body in a giant body bag and hides it in the trunk of Bhamini’s car.
b. 18/10/2022,06:30pm - Both head to the airport to drop Lucky off. Bhamini
comes back to find out that Chandra and her daughter are nowhere to be seen.
She files a missing person report, and soon The police found Chandra’s body in
Bhamini’s car trunk and suspected and arrested her. Bhamini begs the
investigation officers about her innocence and resists giving measurements.
 7

During investigation the police suspected and arrested Mr. Lucky Singh. The
trial is pending before the Magistrate Court.
4. Petitioner approaching this Court - Challenging the Criminal Procedure(
Identification ) Act 2022 and seek Judicial Review of Sections 2(1)(a) (iii), 2(1) (b), 3,
4, 5, 6 and 8 of the Act.
 8

ISSUE RAISED:

ISSUE 1:
Whether the Criminal Procedure ( Identification ) Act 2022 is devoid of substantive due
process and ultra vires to the constitution?

ISSUE 2:
Whether the rights of the accused person is infringed under this Act?

ISSUE 3:
Whether this Act envisages greater Arbitrary powers to the investigative agencies ?
 9

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE 1:Whether the Criminal Procedure ( Identification ) Act 2022 is devoid of
substantive due process and ultra vires to the constitution?
The Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 is constitutionally valid and the accused can
be compelled to give measurements and biological samples to the jail authorities for the
reason: Firstly, The act does not violate any of the constitutional provision. Secondly,
Measurement for Identification purposes is not hit by provisions of Part III of the constitution.
ISSUE 2:Whether the rights of the accused person are infringed under this Act ?
The Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 is constitutionally valid and the accused can
be compelled to give measurements and biological samples to the jail authorities for the
reason: Firstly, The act does not violate any of the constitutional provision. Secondly,
Measurement for Identification purposes is not hit by provisions of Part III of the constitution.
ISSUE 3: Whether this Act envisages greater Arbitrary powers to the investigative
agencies ?
The petitioners humbly submit that the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 is
not arbitrary, excessive but drafted with reasonable, proportionate and substantive due
process and in valuation of fundamental rights of the citizens of India and other
Constitutional provisions as well as of the basic structure of the Constitution of India, and
thus not liable to be struck down by the court.
 10

ADVANCED ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1:Whether the Criminal Procedure ( Identification ) Act 2022 is devoid of substantive
due process and ultra vires to the constitution?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble High Court of Mehula that the Criminal Procedure
(Identification) Act, 2022 is constitutionally valid and the accused can be compelled to give
measurements and biological samples to the jail authorities for the reason: Firstly, The act does
not violate any of the constitutional provision. Secondly, Measurement for Identification
purposes is not hit by provisions of Part III of the constitution. Thirdly, In the light of data
protection laws in Mehula, the right to privacy will not be infringed and lastly by applying the
Doctrine of Presumption of constitutionality.

A. The Act does not violate article 14 and is hence not arbitrary.

It was held that where the decision-making process is followed, without the recording of
reasons, such act will be construed under “arbitrariness”1.In this situation, the Criminal
Procedure (Identification) Act, was designed to allow the gathering, processing, and
storage of biometric and personal data of everyone apprehended by executive authorities,
including prisoners, and was a revision of the 102-year-old colonial legislation of the
Prisoners Act.
● A three-judge bench of this Court knocked down a plenary statute (Tamil Nadu
Act, 1986) on the grounds that it was arbitrary and hence violated Article 14 in
K.R. Lakshmanan v. State of T.N.2 The State Government's declaration of horse
racing as a "public purpose" was determined to be arbitrary and in conflict with the
1974 Act's Goal (which had declared betting on horse racing as an illegal activity).
"Arbitrariness is inscribed big on the face of the provisions of the 1986 Act," the
court said.

1
Asha Sharma v. Chandigarh Administration, (2011) 10 SCC 86.
2
K.R. Lakshmanan v. State of T.N.1996 AIR 1153, 1996 SCC (2) 226.
 11

● In the present case, the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act does not satisfy
both the reasons mentioned in the preceding lines of the case, since the law is
made following the legislative competence and passed by Parliament. Furthermore,
as established above, it does not violate Part III of the Constitution as it is not
arbitrary and it provides provisions for speedy trial and no accused can be forced
to give measurements, it is only at the satisfaction of the magistrate that a person
as per Section 3, 4 can be compelled to give measurements and thus cannot be
considered unconstitutional.
● Following this decision, in State of A.P. v/s McDowell & Co.3, a discordant note
was struck. It was concluded that the power of Parliament or state legislatures can
be limited in two ways. Firstly, a lack of legislative competence and secondly, a
violation of any of the fundamental rights listed in Part III of the Constitution.
D. The Doctrine of Presumption of Constitutionality is applied.

The doctrine of ‘presumption of constitutionality is a legal doctrine used by courts during

statutory interpretation — the process by which courts interpret and apply a law passed by
the legislature, such as Parliament4.The rule-making authority's legislature is believed to
approve legislation that does not contradict or violate the constitution.As a result, unless a
statute or statutory regulation contradicts the basic rights protected under Part III of the
Constitution, there is a presumption in favor of its validity.The Supreme Court in the
1992-case5 opined that the court should not interpret a statutory provision, unless required
by its language, in a way that would involve its unconstitutionality.
● A11-Judges Bench had opined that the real test of constitutionality lays upon the
“real impact” of the legislation on the life of a person and not on the objective of
such legislation.6

3
State of A.P. v/s McDowell & Co.,1996 AL 1627.
4
Marathe, Explained: Presumption of Constitutionality in the case of new citizenship (Jan, 13, 2020 , 07:31 AM)
https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/presumption-of-constitutionality-in-the-case-of-the-newcitizenship-law-6
21196
5
ML Kamra v New India Assurance 1992 AIR 1072.
6
RC Cooper v. Union of India (1970) 1 SCC 248.
 12

In this case, the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Legislation will have an influence on
the time frame of the proceedings since the scope of measurement has been expanded.
This act will aid in the avoidance of delay in justice and will facilitate a speedy trial.
Physical and biological samples can be delivered as legally accepted evidence. These
assist investigative agencies in determining an accuser’s crimes, aid in rapid prosecution
and conviction, give speedy justice, and function as a deterrent for future criminal growing
trends in the criminal world.

E. In the light of Data Protection Laws in Estancia, the Right to Privacy will not be
infringed :

The right to privacy has been subject to judicial interpretation since it is neither evident
nor stated in the Indian Constitution. Through judicial interpretation of the fundamental
rights, the right to privacy has been brought within the ambit of the basic right.As is the
case with the current legislation, these laws should not be viewed as a danger to the
constitution when used to seek and investigate an accused in order to safeguard social
security.
● The Supreme Court reviewed whether the 'right to privacy is a basic right for the
first time in the case of M.P. Sharma & Ors. v. Satish Chandra, District
Magistrate, Delhi and Ors7.The Supreme Court ruled that the authority of search
and seizure did not violate any constitutional restrictions. It was claimed that the
right of search and seizure is vital and an overriding authority granted to the state
by law to ensure social security.
● In Justice K.S. Puttaswami and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors, The Hon'ble
Supreme Court's decision in this case established that the right to privacy is
guaranteed or enshrined in Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution. The
Supreme Court's ruling in this case also gives citizens the right to seek legal
remedies if their data privacy rights are violated.

7
M.P. Sharma vs Satish Chandra AIR 1954 SC 300.
 13

As of present, there is no explicit data protection legislation or regulation in India.

However, there are certain statutes and acts that have provisions that address this
issue, including:
Constitution of Estancia- The Constitution protects data privacy by recognising the right
to privacy. The right to privacy has been declared an inherent component of Article 21 by
the Supreme Court, which protects private data as a citizen's private property. Because the
database's protection is within the right to livelihood, it cannot be infringed or taken away
unless it is done so in accordance with the law.
Information Technology Act- The Information Technology Act of 2000 was the only
piece of legislation introduced by Parliament to create a legal foundation for the digital era
as a whole. Also included in this statute is data protection. It establishes a legal framework
to prevent database misuse and imposes severe penalties for cybercrime.
Estancia Penal Code- To deter data theft, the Indian Penal Code has been revised and
enforced. It works well in terms of preventing data theft. Misappropriation of property,
theft and criminal breach of trust are all crimes punishable by imprisonment and a fine
under this act. Though these offences only apply to movable property, the Indian Penal
Code recognises data as part of the definition of "movable property," which includes
corporeal property of "every description" except land and things that are permanently
attached to the earth, and thus data theft is a crime under the Indian Penal Code. As a
result, because computer data or databases are moveable, they are protected by the IPC.
The right to privacy has been subject to judicial interpretation since it is neither evident nor
stated in the Indian Constitution. Through judicial interpretation of the fundamental rights, the
right to privacy has been brought within the ambit of the basic right.

As is the case with the current legislation, these laws should not be viewed as a danger to the
constitution when used to seek and investigate an accused in order to safeguard social security.
As a result, the appellant's claim under para 17 can be shown to be improper on the basis that
there exist data protection regulations to protect citizens' rights, and so the Criminal Procedure
(Identification) Act cannot be regarded as unconstitutional, based on the considerations given
above.
 14

● In Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the apex court held that Right to Privacy
is not guaranteed under the Constitution. The courts have allowed DNA tests on certain
occasions to be used in an investigation for producing evidence.
 15

ISSUE 2 : Whether the rights of the accused person is infringed under this Act?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble High Court of Mehula that the Criminal Procedure
(Identification) Act, 2022 is constitutionally valid and the accused can be compelled to give
measurements and biological samples to the jail authorities for the reason: Firstly, The act does
not violate any of the constitutional provision. Secondly, Measurement for Identification
purposes is not hit by provisions of Part III of the constitution. Thirdly, In the light of data
protection laws in Estancia, the right to privacy will not be infringed and lastly by applying the
Doctrine of Presumption of constitutionality.

A)The Act does not violates the Article 20(3) of Constitution:

The Prisoners' legislation which is followed in the thr state was ruled by the court so not ultra
vires to the Constitutional provisions.8 Where the appellant refused to provide his hair samples
to the investigating offices, it was held that asking for hair samples is not contradictory to
provisions of the constitution. Many Courts accepted such identifying samples as
constitutional, even before the passage of the act. Hence, based on the above remark, it may be
concluded that courts deemed such identifying samples permissible even before the act's
enactment.
● In the State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad9 the scope of protection in Article
20(3), dealing with self-incrimination by the accused person, was defined.
Self-incrimination refers to conveying information in personal knowledge of a person
and is not confined to merely producing documents in court which may throw a light
on any of the points in the controversy, but which do not contain any statement of the
accused based on his personal knowledge. For example, the accused person may be in
possession of a document which is in his writing or which contains his signature or his
thumb impression. The production of the document in his writing, or which contains
his signature or thumb impression.
The Delhi High Court10 ruled that if the charges are framed after investigation, during the

8
Amrit Singh v. State of Punjab (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 41.
9
State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad AIR 1961 SC 1808.
10
Rakesh Bisht v. C.B.I. 2007 (1) JCC 482 and MANU/DE/0338/2007
 16

court’s proceedings, the court is of the opinion that the voice samples ought to be taken for
establishing identity, then directions can be given on the condition that voice sample is taken
only for identification purpose. Moreover, it should not consist of an inculpatory statement to
violate Article 20(3) of the Constitution.

● In the case of Selvi v. The State of Karnataka,11 the Court evaluated the protective
breadth of the right against self-incrimination, namely whether it extends to the
investigative stage, and concluded that Article 20 covers even police investigations.
After citing extensively from the Kathi Kalu Oghad case, it was noted that two
premises clearly define the extent of 'testimonial coercion.' The first is that, in most
cases, oral or written remarks conveying a person's intimate knowledge of important
facts amount to "personal testimony," and so fall within the scope of Article 20.

Giving thumb-impression or impressions of foot or palm or fingers or specimen writings or

showing parts of the body by way of identification are not included in the expression "to be a
witness" in Article 20(3). Therefore, extracting a voice sample of an accused by the police
during the investigation is not hit by this Article.

As a result of the foregoing considerations, it may be established that measurements such as

biometrics and other biological data can be obtained through Bamini for the sake of
identification. The two premises set out in the prior decisions are not fulfilled by this conduct,
because no such measures or procedures are utilised to assess the accused's "personal
knowledge," and measurements are solely obtained for identification purposes. As a result,
such measures will not be subject to the constraints imposed by Article 20(3).

Furthermore, under Section 3 of the Act, “if so required, allow taking such measurements”
entail that it is at the discretion of the person under this section to give such measurements.
Furthermore, the proviso expressly states that any person “arrested” is not obliged to allow the
taking of his/her biological samples.Hence, the act shall not be considered intrusive and

11
Selvi vs. State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263.
 17

against the right to privacy and self- incrimination as it is upon the discretion of the arrested
person to allow for the taking of such measurements.
But in the present case, Bamini can be compelled to give such measurements in this case
because, as a convicted person, he cannot exercise his right to refuse to allow such
measurements under section 3 provision , which expressly states that "arrested" persons may
not be required to allow taking such biological samples, but Andy is a convicted person,11 and
hence is bound to give the measurements required for investigation by the police officer.As a
result, the petitioners claim, that the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act in the absence of
a Data Protection Law will be considered unconstitutional can be shown to be improper on the
basis that there exist data protection regulations to protect citizens' rights, and so the Criminal
Procedure (Identification) Act cannot be regarded unconstitutional, based on the
considerations given above.

B)Need for this law:

The world has undergone technological and scientific changes, Crime and its have crime and
its trend have increased.Advanced countries across the globe are relying on new
"measurement" techniques for reliable results.It was felt necessary to expand the "ambit of
persons" whose measurements can be taken as this will help investigating agencies gather
sufficient legally admissible evidence and establish the crime of the accused person.
 18

ISSUE 3:Whether this Act envisages greater Arbitrary powers to the investigative
agencies.

The Respondent states that the aforesaid provisions are not arbitrary, excessive, not
unreasonable but proportionate of substantive due process and in valuation of fundamental
rights of the citizens of India as well as of the basic structure of the Constitution of India,
and thus are not liable to be struck down by the court.

The Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022:

allows police officers or prison officers to collect certain identifiable information (such as
fingerprints, biological samples) from convicts or those who have been arrested for an offence.
The Rules empower the NCRB to specify guidelines for taking measurements, and handling,
storage, processing, matching, destruction and disposal of these records.
• The Rules provide that an authorised police officer or prison officer, a
registered medical practitioner, or any person skilled in taking the measurements may take
such measurements under the Act.
• The Act specifies the grounds under which measurements may be collected and
who can collect such measurements. The Rules change the scope of the Act by altering the
grounds under which measurements may be collected, and the list of persons who may take
measurements.
• The Act delegates certain powers to the government. The Rules further
delegate these to the NCRB. The Supreme Court has held that tasks entrusted to an entity in
subordinate legislation may not be further delegated to another entity. These delegated powers
include guidelines to NCRB on maintaining records.

• The Act provides for destruction of measurement records if a person is

acquitted. The Rules put the onus on the person to request for the destruction of such records.

Measurements can be extracted for identification purposes and the same would not be
arbitrary in nature:
 19

Under Section 5, the magistrate is authorised to ask for measurement only after having been
satisfied regarding the need for such measurement for investigation purposes. This
demonstrates that the law is not arbitrary in nature, because an arrested person can only be
asked to give measurements for the purpose of a criminal investigation after the magistrate has
been satisfied, and such measurements would not be construed as testimonial compulsion
under Article 20 (3) because they are not within the accuser’s personal knowledge. 12
Section 2(h), Section 53, Section 311A, and Section 54A13 of the Criminal Procedure Code
also grant such authority.
Because voice samples, iris, and retina fall under the category of physical qualities, Section 53
has been given a narrow interpretation to cover physical evidence.
As a result, under Section 53 of the Code, the Magistrate has supplementary or implied
powers to order a person to provide a voice sample and other physical evidence in order to
facilitate the inquiry.14
Hence it can be observed from the abovementioned statements that such measurements are not
arbitrary in nature as a person is compelled under this section only after the satisfaction of the
magistrate that their requirement of such measurements is for the purpose of the inquiry.

The Act does not violate article 14 and is hence not arbitrary:

It was held that where the decision-making process is followed, without the recording of
reasons, such act will be construed under “arbitrariness”.15In this situation, the Criminal
Procedure (Identification) Act, was designed to allow the gathering, processing, and storage of
biometric and personal data of everyone apprehended by executive authorities, including
prisoners, and was a revision of the 102-year-old colonial legislation of the Prisoners Act.

● A three-judge bench of this Court knocked down a plenary statute (Tamil Nadu Act,
1986) on the grounds that it was arbitrary and hence violated Article 14 in K.R.

12
Ritesh Sinha v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (2019) 8 SCC 1.
13
Kymlickan Code of Criminal Procedure Act, Acts of Parliament, 1973
14
Selvi v. the State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263,
15
Asha Sharma v. Chandigarh Administration, (2011) 10 SCC 86.
 20

Lakshmanan v. State of T.N.16 The State Government's declaration of horse racing as

a "public purpose" was determined to be arbitrary and in conflict with the 1974 Act's
Goal (which had declared betting on horse racing as an illegal activity). "Arbitrariness
is inscribed big on the face of the provisions of the 1986 Act," the court said.
● Following this decision, in State of A.P. v/s McDowell & Co., 17a discordant note was
struck. It was concluded that the power of Parliament or state legislatures can be
limited in two ways. Firstly, a lack of legislative competence and secondly, a violation
of any of the fundamental rights listed in Part III of the Constitution.

In the present case, the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act does not satisfy both the
reasons mentioned in the preceding lines of the case, since the law is made following the
legislative competence and passed by Parliament. Furthermore, as established above, it does
not violate Part III of the Constitution as it is not arbitrary and it provides provisions for
speedy trial and no accused can be forced to give measurements, it is only at the satisfaction of
the magistrate that a person as per Section 3,4 can be compelled to give measurements and
thus cannot be considered unconstitutional.

The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) is authorize their duty by the Act outlined
in the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Rules, 2022:
The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) is authorized by the Act to gather, store, process,
communicate, disseminate, and, as may be required by laws, delete records of measurements
from state governments, union territory (UT) administrations, or other law enforcement
authorities. These specifics are outlined in the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Rules, 2022.
The Ministry of Home Affairs announced these Rules on September 19, 2022.
Records to be in destruction:According to the Act, records will be destroyed unless the
Magistrate or court orders otherwise in the case of individuals who:
• Have not previously been convicted (of an offence with imprisonment),
• Are released without trial, discharged, or found not guilty. The NCRB will properly dispose
of the records.

16
K.R. Lakshmanan v. State of T.N.1996 AIR 1153, 1996 SCC (2) 226.
17
State of A.P. v/s McDowell & Co., 1996 AL 1627.
 21

The SOPs will outline the record disposal and destruction process in accordance with the
Rules. A nodal officer will be designated by the state, the federal government, or the UT
administration to whom requests for the deletion of measuring records will be made. After
confirming that the records in question are unrelated to any other criminal matters, the nodal
officer will propose their destruction to NCRB.
Keeping measurement records on hand:According to the Rules, the NCRB is required to
publish Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for taking measurements, which must include
the following information:
• Specifications and format for the measurements that must be taken.
• Specifications for the equipment that must be used to take these.
• Handling and storage procedures for the measurements.
The SOPs may also specify:
• How each measurement should be transformed to a digital format before being uploaded to
the database
• The encryption technique.
Taking measurements:
According to the Act, it may be necessary for all prisoners, those who have been arrested, and
those who are being held as a result of a preventive detention order to provide their measures.
According to the Rules, some individuals will not have their measures taken until after they
have been charged or detained in relation to another offence. These people include individuals
who are detained under preventive detention under Section 151 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), or who violate prohibitory orders under Sections 144 or 145 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
Made certain restrictions:
A.The rules state that data of people arrested under offences related to elections (Chapter IXA
of the Indian Penal Code) and offences related to contempt or disobedience of public servants’
authority (Chapter X of the IPC) can only be taken with the “prior written approval” of a
police officer not below the rank of a superintendent of police.
B. people charged for violating prohibitory orders or detained for disturbing peace under
section 144 or 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), will not be obliged to give
 22

their measurements unless they are charged or arrested in connection with any other offence
punishable under any other law during that period, according to the rules
C. measurements of people against whom preventive action has been initiated under sections
107, 108, 109 or 110 of the CrPC (pertaining to various offences related to public peace) “shall
not be taken” unless the person is “ordered to give security for his good behaviour or
maintaining peace under section 117 of CrPC. Under Section 117, a magistrate has powers to
order a person to give security for good behaviour.
If any person who is required to allow the measurements to be taken under the Act resists or
refuses to allow taking of such measurements, the authorised user shall take the measurements
in accordance with the provisions of sections 53 and 53A of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973.The record of measurements shall be stored and preserved in a secure and encrypted
format as specified in the Standard Operating Procedures.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

Although the concept of delegated legislation was not mentioned specifically in the Indian
Constitution it can be understood by interpreting Article 312 of the given Constitution. This
Article gives right to the Rajya Sabha to open a new branch of All India Service with a
majority of two-thirds majority vote. This means that some powers of legislation will be
delegated to the new recruiter of All India Service.

SUB -DELEGATION :

A)When a statute confers legislative powers on an administrative authority and that authority
further delegates those powers to another subordinate authority or agency, it is called
sub-delegation. Thus, what happens in sub-delegation is that a delegate further delegates. This
process of sub-delegation may go through one stage to another stage. If the enabling Act is
called the ‘Parent’ then the delegated and the sub-delegated act is called the Children.

B)The nature and scope of sub-delegation is also wide like delegated legislation. A
rule-making authority can sub-delegate its rule-making power to other authority when enabling
 23

or parent act expressly or impliedly authorizing them to further delegate their powers. The
maxim, Delegatus non potest delegare narrows the scope of sub-delegation. If the enabling or
parent act does not expressly authorize to delegate power then legislative power cannot be
sub-delegated. In a leading case, Ganpati v. State of Ajmer, it was held that an enabling or
parent act authorized the Chief Commissioner to make rules for the establishment of a proper
system for sanitation and conservancy. The Chief Commissioner authorized the District
Magistrate to make rules to invent a new way of doing something in his own system. The
Supreme Court held that the rules made by the District Magistrate was invalid because it was
sub-delegation without an express authority. It can be valid if the parent act authorizes
sub-delegation. Sub-delegation includes the principle or doctrine of Excessive Legislation, it
means the legislature or rule making authority excessively delegates its power or legislative
function to other authority, such delegation will be held unconstitutional. This principle fulfills
two objective that it ensures democratic accountability in the laws and it gives minimum
delegation to the court with discretion to judge if the delegation is ultra vires to the enable act.

C)The process of sub-delegation is provided by the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Section
3 of the Act confers rule-making power on the Central Government. This can be called the first
stage of Delegation. Under Section 5, the Central Government is empowered to delegate
powers to its officers, the State Governments and their officers. Frequently under this
provision, the powers are delegated to State Governments.

D)This may be regarded as the second stage of Delegation. When the power is further
sub-delegated by the State Government to their officers, it may be characterised as the third
stage of Delegation. The working of the process can be seen in the context of the Cotton
Control Order, 1955, The order is made by the Central Government under Section 3 of the Act
(this can be called the first stage of delegation).

E)Under the Order, the functions and powers are conferred on the Textile Commissioner (this
can be called the second stage of delegation). Under clause 10, the Textile Commissioner is
 24

empowered to authorize any officer to exercise on his behalf all or any of his functions and
powers under the Order (third stage of Delegation).
 25

PRAYER

In the light of facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the
Respondent humbly submit that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to declare the following:

● The Criminal Procedure ( Identification ) Act 2022 is not devoid of substantive

due process and not ultra vires to the constitution.
● The rights of the accused person are not infringed under this Criminal Procedure (
Identification ) Act 2022.
● This Act envisages greater no Arbitrary powers to the investigative agencies.

AND /OR

Pass any other order as the Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of equity, justice, fair play
and good conscience.

All of which is humbly prayed.

(Counsel on behalf of Respondent)