1

TEAM CODE: T1

_______________________________________________________

NORTH EASTERN HILL UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT

PROBLEM-1, 10th SEMESTER, 2022
________________________________________________________

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF

SARDINIA
________________________________________________________

ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

I.A. No 1/2022
_______________________________________________________

NHRC, SARDINIA………………….PETITIONER
VERSUS
UNION OF SARDINIA……………RESPONDENT
________________________________________________________

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………..04

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………….06

STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………………07

STATEMENT OF ISSUES………………………………………………….09

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS…………………………………………......10

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED……………………………………………….13

1. WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF THE SPECIAL PROTECTION TO

ARMED PERSONNEL ON DUTY (IN DISTURBED TERRITORIES)

ACT, 2012 IS IN VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS……………………13

2. WHETHER THE REFUSAL OF THE GOVERNMENT OF SARDINIA

TO START PROSECUTION AGAINST THE ACCUSED ARMED

PERSONNEL IS AN AUTHORITATIVE ACT WHICH IS COUNTER-

PRODUCTIVE TO THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRACY AND

BASICALLY A VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS…………………….15

3. WHETHER THE ATROCIOUS ACTS DONE FROM THE ARMED

PERSONNEL’S END ON THE 23rd SEPTEMBER 2013
(INDISCRIMINATELY FIRING AT CIVILIANS LEADING TO MANY
DEATHS AND THE ARREST OF HUNDREDS OF THE PROTESTING
 3

CIVILIANS) ARE INHUMAN IN NATURE AND VIOLATING HUMAN

RIGHTS………………………………………………………………………..17

4. WHETHER THE WHEREABOUTS OF THE REMAINING 75

ARRESTED CIVILIANS OUT OF THE 100 ARRESTED CIVILIANS
WHICH REMAIN UNKNOWN IS A FAILURE ON THE PART OF
THE GOVERNMENT OF SARDINIA TO ABIDE AND FOLLOW
HUMAN RIGHTS………………………………………………………….…18

PRAYER FOR RELIEF………………………………………………….21

 4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES

1. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950

2. SPECIAL PROTECTION TO ARMED PERSONNEL ON DUTY (IN

DISTURBED TERRITORIES) ACT, 2012

3. UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

4. INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND

CULTURAL RIGHTS, 1966

5. THE PRINCIPLES FOR THE PROTECTION OF ALL PERSONS

UNDER ANY FORM OF DETENTION OR IMPRISONMENT, 1988

BOOKS AND COMMENTARIES

1. Dr. J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India, Central Law Agency, 56 th

Edition, 2019

2. Dr. K.C. Joshi, The Constitutional Law of India, Central law Publications, 3 rd
Edition, 2016

3. Dr. H.O. Agarwal, International Law & Human Rights, Central Law
Publications, 22nd Edition, 2019

4. P.M. Bakshi, The Constitution of India, Universal Lexis Nexis, 17 th Edition,

2020

5. Dr. S. R. Myneni, Human Rights Law, Asia Law House, 2nd Edition, 2020
 5

ARTICLES/ JOURNLS

1. United Nations, International Legal Protection of Human Rights in Armed

Conflict, 2011

2. Apurva Vishwanath, Explained: In Nagaland case, when Supreme Court laid

down procedure for using AFSPA, 2021
3. Nidhi Sharma, Reveal reason for not allowing prosecution of personnel in
human rights cases in J&K: CIC to defence ministry, 2020.

4. http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1891/Preventive-Detention-and-
Constitution-of-India---Effect-on-Human-Rights.html

5. https://taxguru.in/dgft/detention-order-passed-application-mind-liable-
vitiated.html

6. Jasir Aftab, Preventive Detention Laws in India: A Tool for Executive

Tyranny, 2021.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. “Anup Bhuyan v. State of Assam” 2011) 3SCC 377

2. “Abdul Karim v. State of West Bengal” (1969) 1 SCC 433

3. “Extra Judicial Execution Victim families Association (EEVFAM) vs.

Union of India” 2016 SCC 685

4. “Sophia Gulam Mohd. Bhan v. State of Maharashtra” (1999) 6 SCC 593

5. “State of Maharashtra and Ors vs. Bhaurao Punjabrao Gawande” (2008) 3

SCC 613
 6

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

This writ is Petition is being filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Sardinia
in which it has original jurisdiction to try, entertain and dispose the present case.
It sets forth the facts and the laws on which the claims are based.

The Petitioner humbly submits before the Jurisdiction of this Court

 7

STATEMENT OF FACTS

 The Constitution of Sardinia declares Sardinia to be a Union of States which consist

of 39 states and 9 Union Territories. The Preamble of the Constitution of this country
resolves to constitute Sardinia into a Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic,
Republic, providing many fundamental rights to its citizens and persons in its
territory. However these fundamental rights are subjected to certain limitations.

 The nature of the country Sardinia is that, the boundaries of all the states are divided
based on the prevailing language and culture within a particular region. Due to its
vibrant nature, the Constitution of Sardinia also framed with respect and assimilating
various religions, cultures, languages, etc into a common national framework.

 The Legislative and Administrative powers is divided between the Union and the
States, but during emergencies as per an Article in its Constitution, most of the
powers reserved for the states are diluted and the Union can exercise most of the
powers reserved for the States during such situation and this has been a debated
subject matter by many scholars and thinkers to declare the Constitution of Sardinia
as having both federalist and unionist tendencies.

 There are nine States towards the South-West region of Sardinia which are inhabited
mainly by the Schedule Tribes and over the past years after independence there grew
many tensions within this region as a result of the complex mixing of these tribal
groups and the geographical complexities of the region. Xania is one of the states
within the region which is bounded by the neighbouring states- Tinasia, Monolia,
Dorosia and Sloravesta. However on 21st December 2011 there was a tension between
X1 and X2 who are two tribal groups of Xania during a local festival. Within two-
months more than five hundred people were dead and lakhs of people left their houses
and fled to neighbouring states.

 Due to the tension that emerged and failure of the state to maintain law and order, the
Union Parliament of Sardinia promulgated a law name Special Protection to armed
Personnel on duty (in Disturbed Territories) Act, 2012 in the state of Xania and its
 8

four neighbouring states. This Law appears to be draconian and a violation of Human
Rights in nature due to its extreme measures. Such atrocious and inhuman measures
include shooting on sight, killing, arrest without warrant, the use of force, etc.by arm
forces. It also bars any legal proceedings without the sanction of the Government of
Sardinia against any person in respect of anything done or purported to be done.

 In 2013 the state election in Xania was conducted peacefully. However the refusal of
the Government of Sardinia to prosecute the accused armed personnel worsened the
situation in the state. Soon a public protest by an organisation under the name ‘Hope
for Peace’ was organised on 23rd September 2013 to remove the Act enacted within
the State and its four neighbouring states and also to prosecute the accused armed
personnel. Amidst of this situation, a bomb from an unknown direction hit the
contingent of the Army personnel standing nearby, killing five and injuring ten of the
army personnel. Due to this, the army started firing indiscriminately, leading to the
loss of fifty precious civilian lives. They also arrested hundreds of the protesters,
destroying many of the organisation’s branch offices and what seems odd and strange
is that a mystery involves in which the whereabouts of seventy five of these arrested
civilians are still unknown and there remains no news about them.

 The Union Government refused to prosecute the accused armed personnel. Hence
since Xania has no State Human Rights Commission, the people of Xania have
approached the National Human Rights Commission for intervention in which it has
performed the necessary procedure and action in which it filed a writ petition in the
Supreme Court of Sardinia after sending its committee to Xania to enquire about the
facts.
 9

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF THE SPECIAL PROTECTION TO

ARMED PERSONNEL ON DUTY (IN DISTURBED TERRITORIES)
ACT, 2012 IS IN VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS.

2. WHETHER THE REFUSAL OF THE GOVERNMENT OF SARDINIA

TO START PROSECUTION AGAINST THE ACCUSED ARMED
PERSONNEL IS AN AUTHORITATIVE ACT WHICH IS COUNTER-
PRODUCTIVE TO THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRACY AND
BASICALLY A VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS.

3. WHETHER THE ATROCIOUS ACTS DONE FROM THE ARMED

PERSONNEL’S END ON THE 23rd SEPTEMBER 2013
(INDISCRIMINATELY FIRING AT CIVILIANS LEADING TO MANY
DEATHS AND THE ARREST OF HUNDREDS OF THE PROTESTING
CIVILIANS) ARE INHUMAN IN NATURE AND VIOLATING HUMAN
RIGHTS.

4. WHETHER THE WHEREABOUTS OF THE REMAINING 75

ARRESTED CIVILIANS OUT OF THE 100 ARRESTED CIVILIANS
WHICH REMAIN UNKNOWN IS A FAILURE ON THE PART OF
THE GOVERNMENT OF SARDINIA TO ABIDE AND FOLLOW
HUMAN RIGHTS.
 10

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

1. WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF THE SPECIAL PROTECTION

TO ARMED PERSONNEL ON DUTY (IN DISTURBED
TERRITORIES) ACT, 2012 IS IN VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS.

Internal tensions are a common incident and factor that is witnessed in many
tribal regions across the globe. Applying the Special Protection to Armed
Personnel on Duty (In Disturbed Territories) Act, 2012 is nothing but a
draconian and makes the state guilty for the violation of many of the Human
rights due to the nature of the provisions of the Act. The Act largely empowers
the arm personnel, it grants them power to shoot, kill, arrest without warrant or
in simple words to inflict atrocious acts not only on the suspects but even upon
the innocent civilians. This Act is an infringement of Article 3 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights which clearly states that “Everyone has the right
to life, liberty and security of person.” It is also a violation of the Constitution
of Sardinia which has ensured various fundamental Rights for the protection to
its citizens and persons within its territory.

2. WHETHER THE REFUSAL OF THE GOVERNMENT OF

SARDINIA TO START PROSECUTION AGAINST THE ACCUSED
ARMED PERSONNEL IS AN AUTHORITATIVE ACT WHICH IS
COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE TO THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF
DEMOCRACY AND BASICALLY A VIOLATION OF HUMAN
RIGHTS.

The Act bars legal proceedings against the arm personnel without the sanction
of the Government of Sardinia. In addition to this, after witnessing atrocities
and inhuman activities carried out by the arm personnel upon the civilians, the
Government refused to pay heed to it by refusing to prosecute the accused
 11

armed personnel. The Preamble of the Constitution of Sardinia has incorporated

the word democratic in it and under the meaning and concept of Democracy; the
state of Sardinia has been guilty of burying democracy away due to such act
from its end. Further this Act is in violation of Article 8 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the fundamental rights of the Constitution of
Sardinia.

3. WHETHER THE ATROCIOUS ACTS DONE FROM THE

ARMED PERSONNEL’S END ON THE 23rd SEPTEMBER 2013
(INDISCRIMINATELY FIRING AT CIVILIANS LEADING TO
MANY DEATHS AND THE ARREST OF HUNDREDS OF THE
PROTESTING CIVILIANS) ARE INHUMAN IN NATURE AND
VIOLATING HUMAN RIGHTS.

A local human rights organisation under the name Hope for Peace started a
public protest in the capital of Xania on the 23rd of September 2013 to meet
their demands. By its name, we can understand the nature of the protest, but
however this move was also barred by the Government by imposing a
prohibitory order for unlawful assembly. This is another act done that goes
against democracy and also an infringement of a human right on the right to
freedom of speech and expression. The atrocities and inhuman activities carried
out by the armed personnel in retaliation to the bomb thrown at its contingency
from an unknown direction by an unknown individual or group of individuals
on the 23rd of September 2013 that lead to the death of fifty civilians and the
arrest of hundreds of the civilians is barbaric, primitive, inhuman and a violation
of many human rights and fundamental rights of the Constitution of Sardinia.

4. WHETHER THE WHEREABOUTS OF THE REMAINING 75

ARRESTED CIVILIANS OUT OF THE 100 ARRESTED CIVILIANS
WHICH REMAIN UNKNOWN IS A FAILURE ON THE PART OF
 12

THE GOVERNMENT OF SARDINIA TO ABIDE AND FOLLOW

HUMAN RIGHTS.

The transparency in the state of Sardinia appears to be in conflict due to the

mystery that lies in this case where the whereabouts of the seventy five arrested
civilians is still unknown and unheard. This provides room for conspiracy and
future tensions that may emerge out of it. This here again is undemocratic as per
its preamble and largely a violation of human rights and fundamental rights. It
reflects an authoritative government which is no less than a dictatorship. The
refusal from the part of the government to give sanctions to enable the legal
proceedings to be prosecuted against the armed personnel is a continuing
undemocratic practice and violation of Article 8 of the Declaration of Human
rights despite the protest being carried out and the loss of many precious
civilian lives, the government of Sardinia paid no heed to it all.
 13

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF THE SPECIAL PROTECTION

TO ARMED PERSONNEL ON DUTY (IN DISTURBED
TERRITORIES) ACT, 2012 IS IN VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS.

The provisions of this Act are seen to be too stringent and not
compatible especially in today’s modern world. It grants and empowers
atrocities and inhuman activities to be carried out in the name of law and order.
We are living in the period where concepts such as Universal Brotherhood,
integrity, globalisation are growing at a much greater pace and the solution to
achieve peace is not by instilling fear and chaos in the society. The Act
mentions here that it should be enforced in disturbed areas where unrest and
tensions exist and are escalating. It is the 21st century and there are other means
and measures to bring about peace. Law and order within our societies. Peace in
many instances has never been achieved through guns and shootings, in fact it
was through arms, guns, shootings and bombings that escalated the First World
war and Second World War, lest we forget.

Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has stated

that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person, similarly
Article 21 of the Constitution of Sardinia has ensured the protection of life and
personal liberty as one of the fundamental rights. It is known that the
Constitution of Sardinia through its articles relating to emergencies has
mentioned that the Union Government can exercise the powers conferred to the
states during emergencies, through which we can understand that during such
circumstances various legislations could be implemented by the centre upon the
state during such emergencies and one of the Act is the Special Protection to
Armed Personnel on duty (In Disturbed Territories) Act, 2012. Therefore
 14

reading this Act we get a clear glimpse and understanding of its nature and the
issue that arises here is that despite our country being a signatory to various
Human Rights Conventions and treaties, moreover having adopted a
Constitution that upheld and promotes human rights, the Act exist as an a
stringent and inhuman instrument to counter disorder with force and disorder.
Further-more, this Act under Section 4 permits the arm forces to shoot any
person who seems to be suspicious of an offence. When the AFSPA was
enforced in Meghalaya in the 1980s, it was reported that many of the tribal
Khasi women were raped under operation birdie. In the case of “Extra Judicial
Execution Victim families Association (EEVFAM) vs. Union of India”1 Not
every armed person violating the prohibitory order in a disturbed area is an
enemy. Even though he is considered an enemy a thorough investigation has to
be conducted, since every citizen of India is entitled to all the fundamental
rights including Article 21 of the constitution. The UN human rights
experts define these executions as the deliberate killing of individuals outside
of any legal framework.
The absolute authority vested in the armed forces to shoot on
sight based on mere suspicion and for an offence as basic as violating an order.
The power to shoot on sight violates the fundamental right to life, making the
soldier on the ground the judge of the value of different lives and people the
mere subjects of an officer’s discretion. The greatest outrage against this Act is
due to the immunity given to the armed forces. No prosecution, suit or another
legal proceeding shall be instituted except with the previous sanction of the
central government. This immunity which protects guards and also facilitates
the armed forces to take unwarranted decisions at times is clearly questionable.
Even during a state of emergency the right to life and liberty- Article 21 and
certain rights under article 20 cannot be suspended. But the absolute power

1
2016 SCC 685
 15

given to armed forces dissolves the inherent rights given under the fundamental
rights and all the powers are vested in the officers.

2. WHETHER THE REFUSAL OF THE GOVERNMENT OF

SARDINIA TO START PROSECUTION AGAINST THE ACCUSED
ARMED PERSONNEL IS AN AUTHORITATIVE ACT WHICH IS
COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE TO THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF
DEMOCRACY AND BASICALLY A VIOLATION OF HUMAN
RIGHTS.

Provisions of the Special Protection to Armed Personnel on Duty (In Disturbed

Territories) Act, 2012 bars any legal proceedings without the sanction of the
Government of Sardinia against any person in respect of anything done or
purported to be done in exercise of the powers conferred by the Act. Democracy
paves way for justice, Sardinia is a country in which its Preamble has
constituted to resolve Sardinia into a Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic,
Republic, but taking into account the events that took place we witness that
democracy has not been fully upheld in this country but rather it remains a
principle incorporated in the constitution. The powers conferred by the Act
upon the armed personnel, empowers them to carry out extreme measures and
all under the banner to protect the people. The Constitution of Sardinia has
ensured the Fundamental Right of Right to protection of life and personal
liberty but what is seen in the nature of this Act is that it allows killing, arrest
and other atrocious acts by the armed personnel upon the civilians, thus this
proves and shows the hypocrisy of the Act and deviation of the Act away from
the Constitution and Human Rights. Despite such acts done by the armed
personnel, the Government of Sardinia refused to start prosecution against the
armed personnel, this is an act on the part of the Government of Sardinia which
 16

violates human rights that ensures the right to remedy. The fact that the armed
personnel did engaged in many cruel activities, yet remedy was denied to the
people of these states.

On December 4, 2021, soldiers from the 21 Para Special Forces

army unit shot and killed 14 civilians saying the soldiers mistook the miners for
militants. The deaths led to violent clashes between local villagers and troops,
killing seven more civilians and a soldier. India’s home minister, Amit shah
expressed regret over the incident and said a Special Investigation Team will
investigate it. However, he did not clarify in Parliament whether the central
government will give permission to prosecute those found responsible.

Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has

stated that everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent
national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the
Constitution or by law. It is the nature of all democratic countries that justice is
served to the victims who has been inflicted by offences by the accusers;
prosecution is carried out against the accused, a rapist, a murderer is prosecuted
for such offences and what difference will these offences be from the offences
done by the armed personnel, but in this case through the Act it empowers the
armed forces to carry out inhuman treatments upon innocent civilian lives and
after which the armed personnel get to escape prosecution easily and freely at
the refusal of the government to grant sanction against it. Following the
Nagaland incident in 2021, many human rights organisations are of the opinion
and have voice out that this law should be repealed. This Act empowers the
powered and weakens the weaked.

“Extra Judicial Execution Victim families Association

(EEVFAM) vs. Union of India”1 the Supreme Court held that proceedings in a

1
2016 SCC 685
 17

criminal court can be instituted against defence personnel if an offence is said to

have been committed by them through excessive force or retaliatory force,
resulting to the death of any person.

3. WHETHER THE ATROCIOUS ACTS DONE FROM THE

ARMED PERSONNEL’S END ON THE 23rd SEPTEMBER 2013
(INDISCRIMINATELY FIRING AT CIVILIANS LEADING TO
MANY DEATHS AND THE ARREST OF HUNDREDS OF THE
PROTESTING CIVILIANS) ARE INHUMAN IN NATURE AND
VIOLATING HUMAN RIGHTS.

The Unlawful Assembly was imposed by the Local Administration on the 23 rd

of September 2013 when a public protest under the name of Hope for peace led
by a Human Rights organisation was organised. The protest was carried out on
grounds that their demands were not met. Article 19 of the Constitution of
Sardinia has provided provisions ensuring the fundamental rights of the
protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc, Article 19 (a)
ensures that all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and
expression, 19(b) ensures the right to assemble peaceably and without arms and
19(c) ensures the right to form associations or unions. The part and parcel of a
democratic country is that it allows its people to voice out and to express. The
nature of the protest from its name can be understood that it is not a threat to the
law and order of the state.

The armed forces carried on a gruesome attack on the civilians as a

retaliation to the bomb thrown at their contingent. The bomb came from an
unknown direction and it is unprofessional of the armed personnel to carry
forward the attack upon the innocent civilians in which there is no prove a sto
whether the bomb was thrown by the civilians or whether it came from the
 18

armed personnel. In the case of “Anup Bhuyan v. State of assam”1 the court
held that even assuming the appellant was a member of ULFA, there is no
evidence that he did acts of the nature mentioned. Even if he was a member of
ULFA, it has to be proved that he was an active member. Thus it was faulty in
the part of the armed personnel too to start firing indiscriminately against the
civilians on grounds of retaliation against the bomb thrown at their contingency
when the bomb came from a unknown direction.

The activity carried out by the armed personnel killed fifty innocent
civilian and more than hundred serious injuries. In the case of “State of
Maharashtra and Ors vs. Bhaurao Punjabrao Gawande”2 the court observed
that personal liberty is a precious right. So did the founding father believe,
because while their first object was to give unto the people a Constitution
whereby the Government was established, their second object, equally
important was to protect the people against the Government, which is conferred
with extensive powers which sometimes may abuse the civilians through suc
powers.

The attacks carried out by the armed personnel are an infringement

to article 21 of the Constitution and many of the Human Rights articles. Many
innocent people have lost their lives. The armed personnel had countered with
an extreme measure. Instead of resorting to other more humane principles to
bring about peace and law and order, they engaged in arms and criminal
offences and have left the blood of fifty innocent civilian lives in their hands.

4.WHETHER THE WHEREABOUTS OF THE REMAINING 75

ARRESTED CIVILIANS OUT OF THE 100 ARRESTED CIVILIANS

1
(2011) 3SCC 377
2
(2008) 3 SCC 613
 19

WHICH REMAIN UNKNOWN IS A FAILURE ON THE PART OF

THE GOVERNMENT OF SARDINIA TO ABIDE AND FOLLOW
HUMAN RIGHTS.

The whereabouts of the 75 civilians who were arrested by the armed personnel
on the 23rd of September 2013 leaves room for doubt on the reliability and trust
towards the armed personnel. In a democratic country, transparency is
maintained and nothing is carried out in secrecy even when it includes a
detainee or a person arrested. The detainees must receive detailed and prompt
information about the grounds of their arrest. Currently, the detaining authority
is required only to communicate the grounds of detention to the detainee as
soon as may be after the arrest. Article 9 (2) of the ICCPR provides that anyone
who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his
arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him. Detainees
must be guaranteed a minimum period in which the grounds are promptly
communicated to them, and be given information sufficient to permit the
detainee to challenge the legality of his or her detention.

In “Abdul Karim v. State of West Bengal”1 the Supreme Court

held that the right to be informed about the ground of one’s arrest as soon as
possible and to make a representation against such order of detention, under
Article 22(5), is a valuable constitutional right and not a mere formality.

The right to legal consultation and representation should not only

be seen through a constitutional or statutory prism but rather as a right that
flows from the right to enjoy personal liberty, which is a basic human right. In
the complicated world of law, it is impossible for a layperson unacquainted with
legal knowledge and no prior experience of such a situation to understand the
reasons for which he is being kept in detention.

1
(1969) 1 SCC 433
 20

In “Sophia Gulam Mohd. Bhan v. State of Maharashtra”1 , the

Supreme Court held that a detainee can make a representation against the order
of detention only when the grounds upon which such order is made are
communicated to the detainee, the material on which the grounds are based are
also disclosed, and copies of relevant documents are supplied. In the instant
case, due to the non-supply of relevant material upon which such detention
order was made, the order of detention was quashed by the court.

The Body of Principles for the Protection of all Persons under any
form of Detention or Arrest has laid down in principle 11 that a person shall not
be kept in detention without being given an effective opportunity to be heard
promptly by a judicial or other authority. A detained person shall have the
right to defend himself or to be assisted by counsel as prescribed by law.
Thus the act carried out by the armed personnel is in violation of Principle
12, 13, etc. Principle 16 further states that promptly after arrest and after each
transfer from one place of detention or imprisonment to another, a detained
or imprisoned person shall be entitled to notify or to require the competent
authority to notify members of his family or other appropriate persons of his
choice of his arrest, detention or imprisonment or of the transfer and of the
place where he is kept in custody.

1
(1999) 6 SCC 593
 21

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced
and the authorities cited, the counsel for the Petitioner hereby prayed and
respectfully request this Hon’ble Supreme Court of Sardinia that it may be
pleased to adjudge and declare that;

(1) that the Hon’ble Court may please order the production of the bodies of 75
arrested persons that are still unknown.

(2) that the Hon’ble Court may please order the Union Government of Sardinia
to grant sanction to start prosecution against the accused Army personnel for the
violations of the fundamental right to a life committed by them on 23
September 2013 and its aftermath.

And/Or

The Hon’ble Court shall pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of
Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

For this Act of Kindness, the Petitioner shall be duty bound forever Pray.

Sd/-

Place: Counsels For The Petitioner

Date: