REVA UNIVERSITY Intra Moot Court Competation,2021

Organized by SCHOOL OF LEGAL STUDIES

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF EMPIRE

IN THE MATTER OF

Amber University & Ors………………………………………………………….Petitioner

V.

Government of Empire……………………………………………………………..Respondent

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.Index of authorities …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 3

2.Statement of jurisdiction …………………………………………………………………………………….6

3.Statement of facts ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………7

4.Statement of issues ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………9

5.Summary of arguments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………10

6. Advanced arguments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..12

7. Prayer ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………16

2
 LIST OF ABBREVIATION

• COE - Constitution of Empire

• SC - Supreme court
• IPC - The Indian penal code
• CPC -Code of Criminal Procedure
• SEC - section
• ART – Article
• V. – versus
• Hon’ble - Honourable

3
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

BOOKS REFERRED

1. M.P.JAIN, Constitution of india, Lexis Nexis(7th edition,2014).

2. Richa Asopa, Rights of Citizen, Lawmann’s.
3. Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, Lawmann’s(2017 Edition)
4. The Indian Penal Code,1860,KLJ Publication(2nd edition 2019)
5. M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, MC Grow Hill(6th Edition)

WEBSITES REFERRED

• https://www.lawaudience.com
• https://www.legalbites.in
• https://www.scconline.in
• https://www.Indiankanoon.org
• www.casemind.com
• www.outlookIndia.com
• https://www.indiatoday.com
• https://lawoctopus.com

CASES REFERRED

1. Himat Lal K. Shah vs Commissioner Of Police, on 15 September, 1972

2. State of madras vs. row union of india & state . on 31st march , 1952 , 1952 AIR 196,
1952 SCR 597.

STATUTIES REFERRED

• INDIAN PINAL CODE,1860.

• CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950.
• CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973.
• PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS ACTS,1993
• CODE OF CONDUCT(THE POLICE ACT, 1990)

4
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner, Amber University and Ors in the case Amber University and Ors v.
Government of Empire has the honour to submit this memorandum on behalf of the Petitioner
to the jurisdiction of Hon’ble Supreme Court of Empire, under Article 32 of the Constitution
of Empire.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the present matter.

5
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. On 11th December 2020, the government of Empire passed a legislation called the
Citizenship Amendment Act 2020. The Citizenship Amendment Act, 2020 seeks to
provide Empire citizenship to illegal refugees from 6 communities coming from
Metropolis, District X, and Castle Rock. These 6 communities include; Hindu,
Buddhist, Sikh, Christian, Jain, and Parsi.
2. There was a lot of backlash about this legislation since the CAA ringfences Muslim
identity by declaring Empire a welcome refuge to all other religious communities.
This was alleged to violate the Constitution's Article 14, the fundamental right to
equality to all persons. Constitution cannot be reshaped by any Parliament. And yet,
the government maintains that it does not discriminate or violate the right to equality.

3. In response to the passing of the bill, multiple protests across Empire broke out.
People have voiced their concerns and opposition to the implementation of legislation
of such nature.
4. Among the many protests, students of Amber University (referred to hereinafter as
AU), a prestigious institution in the North Empire planned to march to the parliament
of Empire to express their opposition to the Act. The march was planned for 13th
December 2020.
5. 300 students of AU assembled outside their campus and began their march. In the
course of their march, the police had set up a blockade 1.5 Kms from the AU campus
and were • successful in preventing the students from marching further. The students
sat down near the blockade and began sloganeering anal raising their placards.
6. During this protest, reports were coming about that the protesting students had thrown
stones at blockading police which led to the police initiating tear gas shelling and
baton charge. and faculties of AU contended that the police overextended their
authority by charging at the peaceful protestors and using excessive force against
them. In response to the events of 13th December 2020, the student and teaching
bodies of AU called for larger protests against the police action and the legislation.
7. On 15th December 2020, close to 3500 students and faculties had assembled near the
campus to protest.

6
8. The protest turned violent after it was found that the police were trying to forcefully
enter the campus since there were multiple reports which the police had received of
miscreants being inside the AU campus. The students tried resisting but the police
forcefully entered the campus using tear gas shells and batons.
9. Nearly 300 students were detained by the police but were released in the early hours
the very next day. Over 200 students were admitted to the hospital with injuries.
10. This event garnered national attention with images of confrontation between the
police and students being plastered overall news channels. As the nation made sense
of the events which unfolded, there was a CCTV footage of the library of the
university which was released which showed police and paramilitary forces using
force against the students studying in the library.
11. Post the release of the footage, there were similar reports of police using
disproportionate force against students inside the campus who had no relation to the
protests or the students protesting. Accounts from the injured students revealed
allegations being levied against the police and their handling of the situation.
12. The police countered these allegations by saying that at no point did they use any
excessive force against the students. There was stone pelting from the protestors
which injured many policemen. This prompted the warranted action from the police.
The Deputy Commissioner of Police pointed out that the police respect the right to
dissent but no person can be allowed to resort to violence, arson, and riotous activity
in the garb of freedom of speech and expression.
13. He added that such fundamental rights are not absolute and are liable to reasonable
restrictions under the Constitution. Under the garb of organizing a protest, it is
completely impermissible for the citizens to create a law and order situation and to lay
a siege and paralyze the day-to-day activity of fellow citizens who are completely
unconnected with the cause for which protests are organized by a section of the
society.
14. Post the events of December 15th, 2020, there is a PIL filed in the Supreme Court of
Empire seeking action against what is termed as a "brutal attack on the students,
faculties & residents of Amber University" by the petitioners. The police believe the
allegations levied against them are false and untrue.

7
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. WHETHER THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IS MAINTAINABLE?

2. WHETHER PROTESTING AGAINST A LEGISLATION WOULD FALL WITHIN
THE AMIBIT OF ART. 19 (1) (a)?
3. WHETHER THERE IS A NEED TO FRAME GUIDELINES ON THE USE OF
FORCES TO GOVERN THE CONDUCT OF POLICE PERSONNEL?
4. WHETHER THE USE OF SECTION 144 INFRINGES UPON THE CITIZEN’S
RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE AND PROTEST?

8
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE-1: WETHER THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FILED IS

MAINTAINABLE?

It is humbly submitted before the hon'ble supreme court of the empire having original
jurisdiction under article 32 of the constitution to hear any matter wherein there has been a
violation of the fundamental right of the citizen. The matter at hand is not fit for hearing
before this hon’ble court as there has been no violation of fundamental rights. In place of
circumstances of the present case, it is contended that the matter is not fit for adjudication
before the hon’ble supreme court.

ISSUE-2 : WHETHER PROTESTING AGAINST A LEGISLATION WOULD FALL

WITHIN THE AMBIT OF ARTICLE 19[1][a] ?

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble supreme court of the empire, though article
19[1][a] guarantees right of freedom to speech and expression this cannot go completely
unchecked therefore article 19[2] allows for reasonable restriction to be imposed on all
fundamental right including that of freedom to speech and expression. The fundamental
rights guaranteed by the constitution of the empire are not absolute .there are certain
restrictions that can be imposed by the state according to the procedure established by law.
Limitations imposed by article 19[2] on the freedom guaranteed by article 19[1][a] to [g]
serves a twofold purpose, on one hand, it specifies that these freedoms are not absolute but
are subject to regulation, on the other hand, it also imposes a limitation on the power of a
legislature to restrict these freedoms.

ISSUE-3 : WHETHER THERE IS A NEED TO FRAME GUIDELINES ON THE USE OF

FORCE TO GOVERN THE CONDUCT OF POLICE PERSONNEL ?

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble supreme court of the empire that there is
necessarily not a need to frame guidelines on the use of force to govern the conduct of police
personnel. As a meeting of three or more individuals to commit a crime or carry out a lawful
or unlawful purpose in a manner likely to imperil the peace and tranquility of the
neighborhood. The legal provisions and avenues available to police for handling agitations,
protest, and unlawful assembly are covered by the code of CrPC,1973, IPC,1860, and the

9
police act 1861. Recent experience has shown that the political establishment encourages the
use of police powers to renter week otiose the exercise of such rights.

ISSUE-4: WETHER THE USE OF SECTION 144 INFRINGES UPON THE CITIZENS
RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE AND PROTEST?

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble supreme court of the empire the use of section 144
does not infringe the right of the citizen to assemble and protest as article 19[2] of the
constitution authorizes the government to impose, by law, reasonable restrictions upon the
freedom of speech and expressions “in the interest of public order. Section 144 is a ruling that
prohibits public gathering in a given jurisdiction and also the power to issue an order in
urgent cases of nuisances of apprehended danger. The imposition of section 144 would not
infringe upon the rights of the citizen to assembly and protest as article 19[1][b] guarantees
the right to assemble peacefully and without arms but here the evidence of fact clearly shows
that the protest was not a peaceful one as protestors had thrown stones at the blockading
police.

10
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE-1: WETHER THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FILED IS

MAINTAINABLE ?

It is humbly submitted before the hon'ble supreme court of the empire having original
jurisdiction under article 32 of the constitution to hear any matter wherein there has been a
violation of the fundamental right of the citizen. The matter at hand is not fit for hearing
before this hon’ble court as there has been no violation of fundamental rights. In place of
circumstances of the present case, it is contended that the matter is not fit for adjudication
before the hon’ble supreme court.

Article 19(1)(b) recognizes and guarantees the freedom of assembly. But it is not an absolute
right. Restrictions are possible against this right too, as provided under Articles 19(3)
and(4).however under articles 19[2] &19[3] the right to freedom of speech is subject to
“reasonable restrictions in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of the state, the
security of the state, friendly relation with foreign states, public order, decency or morality or
concerning contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offense.

The Supreme Court in its recent judgment holding that the public ways cannot be occupied
indefinitely in the name of protests, have referred to a constitution bench judgment in
HimatLal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad.1The fundamental rights are not
absolute under liable to reasonable restrictions under the constitution. Under the garb of
organizing a protest, it is completely imperishable for the citizens to create a law and order
situation and to lay a siege and paralyze the day-to-day activities of fellow citizens who are
completely unconnected with a cause for which protest is organized by a section of the
society. The constitution which guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression in
article 19[1][a] is the same constitution that provides for reasonable restriction under Article
19[2]. It is therefore submitted that there was no violation of the fundamental right of the
protestors and the PIL filed by the petitioners is not maintainable.

1
Himat Lal K. Shah vs Commissioner Of Police, on 15 September, 1972

11
ISSUE-2 : WHETHER PROTESTING AGAINST A LEGISLATION WOULD FALL
WITHIN THE AMBIT OF ARTICLE 19[1][a] ?

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble supreme court of the empire, though article
19[1][a] guarantees right of freedom to speech and expression this cannot go completely
unchecked therefore article 19[2] allows for reasonable restriction to be imposed on all
fundamental right including that of freedom to speech and expression. The fundamental
rights guaranteed by the constitution of the empire are not absolute .there are certain
restrictions that can be imposed by the state according to the procedure established by law.
Limitations imposed by article 19[2] on the freedom guaranteed by article 19[1][a] to [g]
serves a twofold purpose, on one hand, it specifies that these freedoms are not absolute but
are subject to regulation, on the other hand, it also imposes a limitation on the power of a
legislature to restrict these freedoms.

The right to protest peacefully is guaranteed by the constitution. Articles 19[1][a] and 19[b]
give to all citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression and to assemble peaceably
and without arms. However, under article 19[2] and 19[3], the right to freedom of speech is
subject to “reasonable restriction in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of State, the
security of the state, friendly relations with a foreign state, public order, decency or morality
or concerning contempt of court, defamation or insight meant to an offense.

Article 19[2] permits the government to impose a reasonable restriction on article 19[1][b]
and 19[1][a] when the protest Is not a peaceful one and hear the protest caused hindrance to
the day-to-day activity of the general public whoever not a part of protest .

Articles 19(2) to (6) impose limitations on the freedoms guaranteed by Arts.19 (1)(a) to (g). It
has been said that it is the rights, which are fundamental, and not the limitations. But these
observations overlook the fact that the rights granted are not absolute but are subject to
permissible restrictions. Thus the freedom to speak does not mean the freedom to say
whatever one likes, but freedom subject to the laws of libel, sedition, blasphemy and the like.
Again the freedom of assembly is subject to the assembly being peaceful and not causing a
breach of public peace. The rights represent the claims of the individual and the limitations
represent the claims of other individuals and the claims of the State or society. Therefore to
say that the rights are fundamental and the limitations are not destroys the balance which
Art.19 was designed to achieve.

12
Another question is what is the test for determining whether a restriction is reasonable within
the meaning of Art.19? The test of reasonableness as laid down by Sastri C.J. in Madras v.
V.G. Row2 has generally been accepted as correct. He said: “it is important... to bear in mind
that the test of reasonableness, wherever prescribed should be applied to each individual statute
impugned, and no abstract standard or general pattern of reasonableness, can be laid down as
applicable to all cases”. For adjudging reasonableness of a restriction, the courts consider such
factors as: the nature of right alleged to have been infringed, the underlying purpose of the
restrictions imposed, the extent and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied thereby, the
disproportion of the imposition, the prevailing conditions at the time, should all enter into the
judicial verdict.

ISSUE-3: WHETHER THERE IS A NEED TO FRAME GUIDE LINES ON THE USE OF

FORCE TO GOVERN THE CONDUCT OF POLICE PERSONNEL?

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble supreme court of the empire that there is
necessarily not a need to frame guidelines on the use of force to govern the conduct of police
personnel. As a meeting of three or more individuals to commit a crime or carry out a lawful
or unlawful purpose in a manner likely to imperil the peace and tranquility of the
neighborhood. The legal provisions and avenues available to police for handling agitations,
protest, and unlawful assembly are covered by the code of CrPC,1973, IPC,1860, and the
police act 1861. Recent experience has shown that the political establishment encourages the
use of police powers to renter weak otiose the exercise of such rights.

THE conduct of the police goes to indicate the police action resulted from instruction from
the government and their current stand regarding the no of person present in the protest. The
police used tear gas shelling and baton charge only when the protester had thrown stones at
blockading police. Here the police do respect the right to dissent but no person can be
allowed to resort to violence, and riotus activity in the name of freedom of speech and
expression. The police entered the campus only because the suspected that some miscreants
behind the arson attacks of the protest and they were hiding on the campus. “there is no law
that prevents police from entering any place, including the university campuses if they need
to do so” said the supreme court lawyer ATUL KUMAR in the case of JAMIA MILLIA
university v. UOI. Even if a university frames a rule prohibiting police from entering the
campus with out permission, it is redundant. The CrPC will prevail over any such law. CrPc
grants elaborates power of arrest to police with or without a warrant from the magistrate in

13
general, section 41 of the CrPC authorizes police to make arrest. Section 46 of CrPC allows
police to use force to arrest a person who forcibly resists police action.

ISSUE-4: WHETHER THE USE OF SECTION 144 INFRINGES UPON THE CITIZENS
RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE AND PROTEST?

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble supreme court of the empire the use of section 144
does not infringe the right of the citizen to assemble and protest as article 19[2] of the
constitution authorizes the government to impose, by law, reasonable restrictions upon the
freedom of speech and expressions “in the interest of public order. Section 144 is a ruling that
prohibits public gathering in a given jurisdiction and also the power to issue an order in
urgent cases of nuisances of apprehended danger. The imposition of section 144 would not
infringe upon the rights of the citizen to assembly and protest as article 19[1][b] guarantees
the right to assemble peacefully and without arms but here the evidence of fact clearly shows
that the protest was not a peaceful one as protestors had thrown stones at the blockading
police.

The orders under section 144 have to meet the test of reasonable restriction as per article 19
of the constitution of Empire. The order can be passed when immediate prevention or speedy
remedy is available .the legislative intention to preserve public peace and tranquility without
lapse of time acting emergently, if warranted, giving there by paramount importance to
societal needs by even over riding temporarily private rights keeping in view public interest,
is patently in build in section 144 of CrPC, 1973.section 144 of CrPC of 1973 authorizes the
executive magistrate of any state or territory to issue an order to prohibit the assembly of 4 or
more people in an area . according to the law , every member of such “unlawful assembly “
can be booked for engaging in rioting .

The use of section144 would not infringe upon the rights of the citizens to assemble and
protest as article 19[2] of the constitution provides for unreasonable restrictions . section 144
is imposed only to prevent and address urgent cases of apprehend danger or nuisances

Occasions may arise when it is not possible to distinguish between there whose conduct must
be controlled and those whose conduct is clear . A general order may be necessary when the
number of persons is so large that the distinction between them and the general public cannot
be made so such situations imposing of section 144 is one really needed . “No democracy can
exit if’ public order’ is freely allowed to be disturbed by a section of the citizen ” the
restriction imposed through section 144 cannot be held to be violative of the right to freedom
of speech and expressions , which is a fundamental right because it falls under the reasonable
restrictions ‘ under article 19[2] of the constitution .

14
 PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the facts of the case , issues raised , arguments advanced and
authorities cited this Hon’ble court may be pleased to declare that ,

1. Writ petition is a not maintainable .

2. Protesting against a legislation would not fall within the ambit of Art.19[1][a].
3. There is necessarily not a need to frame guidelines on the use of force to govern the
conduct of police personnel .
4. The use of sec 144 does not infringe upon the citizens right to assemble and protect .

And to pass any other in favour of the respondent that it may deem fit in the interest of justice
, equity and goal conscience . All of which are respectfully submitted .

15