Moot Court Memorial RENEWED

HON’BLE JUSTICE SHIVRAJ V.
PATIL 2ND NATIONAL

MOOTCOURTCOMPETITION
BEFORETHEHON’BLESUPREME COURT
OFINDIANA
WRIT PETITION
WRIT JURISDICTION
CASE.No. OF 2024
INTHEMATTEROF
Adv. PIYUSH PATEL
(PETITIONER)
V.
1). UNION OF INDIANA
2). A.P.I. GANESH SHATHAM
(RESPONDENT)
FOROFFENCESCHARGESUNDER:
ARTICLE 32 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION
UPONSUBMISSIONTOTHEHON’BLESUPREME COURT JUDGE

2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024
TABLEOFCONTENTS
SR.NO. PARTICULARS PAGENO
1 INDEXOFAUTHORITIES 3
2 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 4
4 STATEMENTOFFACTS 15
5 TIMELINE 16
6 STATEMENT OF ISSUES 17
7 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 18
8 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 19
9 PRAYER 31
2
Memorandum on behalf of respondent
Index of Authorities
Constitutional Provisions:-
Constitution of India – Article 20 ;
Constitution of India – Article 22
STATUTES
 Indian Penal Code, 1860
 Criminal Procedure Code , 1973
 Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993
 Advocates Act , 1961
 Police acts, 1861
Rules :
Bar Council of India Rules .
3
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Hon’ble Honourable
IPC Indian Penal Code,1860
V Versus
Sec Section
U/S Under Section
R/W Read With
W Witness
SCC Supreme Court Cases
AIR All India Report
F.I.R. First Information Report
A.P.I. Assistant Police Inspector
Adv Advocate
JMFC Judicial Magistrate First Class
PI Police Inspector
SC Supreme Court
JT Judgement Today
SCR Supreme Court Report
Cr Complaint Registered
4
WEBSITES
http://www.kanoon.orghtt
https://www.findlaw.com
https://www.judis.nic.in
http://www.scconline.com
Legal Database
https://www.Manupatrafast.com
5
Foreign Judgments
1. State v. Graham (N.J.), the court emphasized the importance of assessing the reasonableness
of police use of force based on the totality of circumstances.
2. The Supreme Court's decision in Plumhoff v. Rickard (U.S.) endorsing the use of deadly force
by police during a high-speed chase presents a relevant precedent
3. R v. Williams (Canada), the court emphasized the duty of police to use force that is necessary,
proportionate, and reasonable in the circumstances.
4. In the case of Tennessee v. Garner (U.S) addresses the use of deadly force by law
enforcement officers and emphasizes the necessity of using such force only when there is a
significant threat of death or serious physical harm to others.
Books
a) Indian Police: A Critical Evaluation" by Arvind Verma: This book provides a critical
analysis of the Indian police system, focusing on issues such as police organization,
accountability, and challenges in maintaining law and order. It offers insights into the
complexities of policing in India and can help the police demonstrate their efforts to address
systemic issues and improve service delivery.
b) "Police Reforms in India: A Sisyphean Saga" by N. Ram Mohan: This book examines the
history of police reforms in India, highlighting the obstacles and challenges faced in
modernizing the police force. It offers perspectives on the need for structural changes,
accountability mechanisms, and professional development that can assist the police in
showcasing their commitment to reform and improvement.
c) "Police and Policing in India" by K. Jaishankar: This book provides an overview of the
Indian police system, including its historical evolution, organizational structure, and challenges
in maintaining public order. It offers insights into the role of the police in a democratic society
and can help the police demonstrate their contributions to ensuring public safety and upholding
the rule of law.
6
d) "Policing India in the New Millennium" by M. S. Rao: This book explores contemporary
issues in policing in India, including technology adoption, community policing initiatives, and
challenges in crime prevention. It offers perspectives on innovative policing strategies and best
practices that can assist the police in showcasing their efforts to adapt to changing societal needs
and security threats.
List of Journals
1. "Police Practice and Research: An International Journal": This journal publishes
research articles, case studies, and best practices in policing, providing valuable insights
into innovative strategies, tactics, and technologies that enhance police effectiveness and
community relations.
2. "Journal of Criminal Justice": This journal covers a wide range of topics related to
law enforcement, criminal justice policies, and police practices, offering evidence-based
research and analysis that can support the police in demonstrating the impact of their
work on crime prevention and public safety.
3. "Policing: An International Journal": This journal focuses on contemporary issues in
policing, including organizational management, community engagement, and crime
prevention strategies, offering theoretical perspectives and empirical studies that can
help the police in justifying their operational decisions and practices.
4. "Police Quarterly": This journal publishes scholarly articles on policing practices,
policy evaluations, and law enforcement strategies, providing a platform for the police to
showcase their initiatives, challenges, and successes in maintaining law and order and
serving the community.
5. "Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology": This journal explores the psychological
aspects of policing, including officer well-being, stress management, and decision-
making processes, offering valuable insights that can assist the police in understanding
and addressing the human factors involved in law enforcement activities.
7
Official Journals
1. The National Police Commission Report (1979-81): This report highlighted the challenges
faced by the police force, including issues related to workload, working conditions, and the need
for modernization and capacity-building to effectively combat crime and maintain public order.
2. The Ribeiro Committee Report (1998): This report provided recommendations for enhancing
police training, equipment, and infrastructure to improve operational efficiency,
professionalism, and morale within the police force, thereby enabling them to better serve and
protect the community.
3. The Malimath Committee Report on Reforms of Criminal Justice System (2003): This
report focused on streamlining police investigation procedures, strengthening forensic
capabilities, and ensuring speedy trials to enhance the effectiveness of law enforcement and
improve the overall criminal justice system.
4. The Padmanabhaiah Committee Report on Police Reforms (2000): This report emphasized
the importance of providing adequate resources, training, and support to the police force to
enable them to fulfill their duties effectively, uphold the rule of law, and maintain public safety
while respecting human rights.
5. The Dharam Vira Committee Report on Prison Reforms (1983): This report recognized the
role of the police in ensuring the safe and secure management of prisons, promoting
rehabilitation programs for inmates, and maintaining a balance between punishment and
reformation within the criminal justice system.
8
2) Legal commentaries by Indian legal experts
a) "Police Law and Practice" by P.C. Rao

"Police Law and Practice" by P.C. Rao provides a detailed overview of the legal framework governing
police operations, focusing on the practical application of laws and regulations in law enforcement
activities. The book delves into the powers and duties of the police, emphasizing the importance of
adherence to legal procedures and ethical standards. It offers insights into handling investigations,
evidence collection, and interactions with the public, aiming to enhance the professionalism and
effectiveness of police personnel. By addressing key legal issues faced by the police, the book
serves as a valuable guide for navigating complex legal scenarios and upholding justice while
maintaining public trust.
Legal Commentaries
1. "Police and the Law" by S.N. Mishra

"Police and the Law" by S.N. Mishra examines the legal aspects of police work, emphasizing
the importance of adherence to legal principles and procedures. The book discusses the rights
and duties of police officers, focusing on upholding constitutional values and ensuring due
process. It provides insights into criminal law application, evidence handling, and procedural
fairness to enhance the professionalism and accountability of law enforcement. By addressing
legal challenges faced by the police, the book serves as a valuable resource for promoting lawful
and ethical conduct in policing activities.
2. "Principles of Police Duty" by K. Kannabiran
"Principles of Police Duty" by K. Kannabiran outlines the fundamental principles that guide
police officers in carrying out their duties, emphasizing the importance of integrity,
professionalism, and respect for human rights. The book delves into the ethical considerations
and legal obligations that shape police conduct, aiming to foster a culture of accountability and
transparency within law enforcement agencies. It provides practical insights into decision-
making processes, conflict resolution, and community engagement to enhance the effectiveness
and trustworthiness of police services. By promoting adherence to ethical standards and legal
norms, the book serves as a valuable resource for improving police practices and maintaining
public confidence in law enforcement.
3. "Police and the Public" by Kiran Bedi
9
"Police and the Public" by Kiran Bedi explores the dynamics of police-community relations,
emphasizing the importance of building trust, communication, and collaboration between law
enforcement and the public. The book delves into strategies for enhancing community policing
initiatives, promoting transparency, and addressing societal concerns effectively. It provides
insights into the role of the police in maintaining public order, ensuring safety, and fostering
positive interactions with diverse communities. By highlighting the significance of mutual
respect, empathy, and responsiveness in police-public interactions, the book serves as a valuable
guide for improving police-community relations and enhancing overall public safety.
1. Parliamentary debates
Title: Lok Sabha Debates
Type: Full Text
Date: 23-Apr-2002
Language: English
Lok Sabha Number: 13
Session Number: IX
Type: Full Text
Date: 2-Jan-2018
Language: English
Lok Sabha
16
Number:
10
Session
XIII
Number:
Type: Full Text
Date: 17-Nov-1983
Language: Original
Lok Sabha
07
Number:
Session
XIII
Number:
11
Law commission reports

1. Report No. 152 - Review of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This report addresses issues
related to evidence collection, admissibility of evidence, and standards of proof in criminal
proceedings. It may offer recommendations on evidence gathering procedures that could benefit
the police in investigations
2. Report No. 177 - Malimath Committee Report on Reforms in Criminal Justice System:
This report focuses on comprehensive reforms in the criminal justice system, including police
procedures, investigation techniques, and trial processes. It may contain recommendations to
enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of police operations
3. Report No. 210 - Witness Identity Protection and Witness Protection Program: This report
discusses measures to protect witnesses in criminal cases, including those involving police
misconduct or intimidation. It may provide guidelines on ensuring the safety and cooperation of
witnesses in police-related cases
4. Report No. 267 - Review of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This report evaluates the
provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code relevant to police actions, arrest procedures, and
investigation protocols. It may offer insights into legal requirements and safeguards that govern
police conduct in criminal cases
5. Report No. 262 - Trial by Media: Free Speech vs. Fair Trial Under Criminal Procedure Code: This
report examines the impact of media coverage on criminal trials, including cases involving the
police. It may offer recommendations on managing public perception, protecting the rights of
accused persons, and ensuring fair investigations by the police
12
Case Laws
Case Laws
1. State of Maharashtra Vs. Prabhakar Pandurang Sanzgiri
AIR 1966 SC 424 : (1966) 1 SCR 702 of 1966.
2. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India
AIR 1997 SC 1125 , 1997 (3) SCC 261 of 1997
3. Daryao v. State of U.P. 1961
AIR 1457 , 1962 SCR (1) of 1961
4. State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand
AIR 1998 SC1344, 1998 AIR SCW 1219of 1998
5. Mohini Jain vs. State of Karnataka (1992)
1992 AIR 1858, 1992 SCR (3) 658
6. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
AIR 1973 SUPREME COURT 1461, 1973 4 SCC 225
7. Prakash Singh v. Union of India
[(2006) 8 SCC 1]
8. People's Union for Civil Liberties v. State of Maharashtra
(2014) 5 SCC 678
9. K. Veeraswami v. Union of India
1991 SCR 3 189 , 1991 SCC 3 655
10. D.G. Vanzara v. State of Gujarat
R/CR.RA/9/2016
11. State of Rajasthan v. Balchand
AIR 1977 SC 2447
13
12. Om Prakash v. State of Jharkhand
(2012) 12 SCC 72
13. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Prakash
(1976) 3 SCC 435
14. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Prakash
(1976) 3 SCC 435
15. Rajesh Kumar v. State of Bihar
(2011) 4 SCC 247
14
STATEMENT OF FACTS
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
The following are the alleged facts of the case –
1. It is submitted that on 13th January , Mr. Pankaj Shah received the call from A.P.I. Ganesh
Satham from Badar Police Station regarding F.I.R. being filed against him. After learning this
Mr. Pankaj Shah requested his friend Adv. Piyush Patel to accompany him in police station.
2. On 14th January 2024 , Mr. Shah and Adv. Piyush Patel arrived at Badar police station around
12:00 p.m. They met A.P.I. Shatham informed that complaint was filed against Mr. Shah u/s 420
of IPC , 1860. And started to enquire Mr. Shah. about the same which also involved intimidation
which is also a part of the procedure of enquiry upon which Adv. Piyush Patel intervened upon
which A.P.I. Shatham asked him to leave the police station to avoid any further interferance but
he didn’t leave and this led to argument between them and then A.P.I. Shatham being to
maintain the law and order and ensure the fairness in enquiry resorted to the use of force.
3. As police station was near the Badar J.M.F.C. court due to which the commotion was were
heard by the advocates who rushed in police station, and they tried to intervene but they were
prevented to enter by on duty police constables to maintain law and order and prevent
commotion in police station.
4. Two Advocates Named Adv. Vishal Sanap and Adv. Devendra Tripathi reported this incident to
Learned Magistrate at Badar J.M.F.C. Court .Upon which Magistrate Summoned the in-charge
of Badar police station Senior P.I. Mr. Sunil Shinde and sought explanation on the incident upon
which he informed Magistrate that Adv. Piyush Patel had been arrested u/s. 186 and 189 of
I.P.C. ,1860 .Realising which learned Magistrate took suo-moto cognizance of the case and
granted bail to Mr. Piyush Patel .
5. After he was released , he was taken to hospital in evening at around 8:00 .p.m. Medical
Examination revealed his ear drums has been damaged and his ribs fractured apart from various
injuries .
6. On 15th January 2024 , This incident was in news Headlines and subsequently the protests were
held against the police atrocities against advocates throughout the country.
7. Time period after 15th January a Senor Adv. Moved to Supreme Court of Indiana seeking
appropriate direction in the case of protection of the Advocates .
15
Time line of the case .
Date Incident
13th January 2024 1. Mr. Pankaj Shah received the call from A.P.I. Ganesh Satham from
Badar Police Station regarding F.I.R. being filed against him.
2. Mr. Pankaj Shah requested his friend Adv. Piyush Patel (Civil lawyer)
to accompany him in police station.
14th January 2024 1. Mr. Shah and Adv. Piyush Patel arrived at Badar police station around
12:00 p.m.
2. They met A.P.I. Shatham informed that complaint was filed against
him u/s 420 of IPC , 1860. And started to enquire him Mr. Shah.
3. Adv. Piyush Patel intervened upon which A.P.I. Shatham asked him to
leave the police station but he didn’t leave and this led to argument
between them and then A.P.I. Shatham in order to maintain the law and
order resorted to use of force .
4. As police station was near the Badar J.M.F.C. court due to which the
commotion was heard by the advocates who rushed in police station,
and they tried to intervene but they were prevented to enter by on duty
police constables.
5. Two Advocated Named Adv. Vishal Sanap and Adv. Devendra Tripathi
reported this incident to Learned Magistrate at Badar J.M.F.C. Court .
6. Upon which Magistrate Summoned the in-charge of Badar police
station Senior P.I. Mr. Sunil Shinde and sought explanation on the
incident upon which he informed Magistrate that Adv. Piyush Patel had
been arrested u/s. 186 and 189 of I.P.C. ,1860 .
7. Realising which learned Magistrate took suo-moto cognizance of the
case and granted bail to Mr. Piyush Patel .
8. After he was released , he was taken to hospital in evening at around
8:00 .p.m.
9. Medical Examination revealed his ear drums has been damaged and
his ribs fractured apart from various injuries .
15th January 2024 This incident was in news Headlines and subsequently the protests were held
against the police atrocities against advocates throughout the country.
Time period after A Senor Adv. Moved to Supreme Court of Indiana seeking appropriate
15th January 2024 direction in the case of protection of the Advocates .
16
STATEMENT OF ISSUE
1). IS THE INSTANT CASE MAINTAINABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA ?

2). IS HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT COMPETENT TO FORMULATE LAWS IN
. SUCH TYPE OF CASE?
3). WHAT RELEIF THE HONOURABLE COURT MAY GRANT?
4). DO INTERPRETORS OF LAW REALLY NEED PROTECTION OF LAW ?
17
SUMMARYOFARGUMENT
1. IS THE INSTANT CASE MAINTAINABLE IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME

COURT OF INDIANA?
No, the incident at the Badar Police Station involving an altercation between A.P.I. Shatham and
Adv. Piyush Patel may not be deemed maintainable within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of
Indiana as it is a matter of internal discipline and no Fundamental right was hampered .
2. IS HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT COMPETENT TO FORMULATE LAWS IN

SUCH TYPE OF CASE?
The supreme court of Indiana is not competent to formulate laws on such issues . The function of
the court is to interpret the laws and ensure that they are implemented properly and not to make a
new legislation.
3. WHAT RELEIF THE HONOURABLE COURT MAY GRANT ?
Dismissal of any false charges filed against the police officer, A.P.I. Shatham by advocates at the
Badar Police Station, including charges of assault on Adv. Patel, to protect the integrity of law
enforcement officers.
4. DO INTERPRETORS OF LAW REALLY NEED PROTECTION OF LAW ?
Every individual should ideally be protected by the law, including those who interpret and
administer it, there are certain instances where conflicts may arise between law enforcement
agencies and legal professionals .
18
PLEADINGS/ARGUMENTSADVANCED
With regards to the issues framed , the following are the pleadings of Respondent ,which
has been discussed in detail issue wise by us as follows:
1. IS THE INSTANT CASE MAINTAINABLE IN THE SUPREME

COURT OF INDIANA ?
i. The Respondent humbly contends that Officer A.P.I. Shatham's actions were
undertaken in accordance with the established law of the State of Indiana and
constituted the lawful execution of his official duties. Specifically, the State argues
that Officer Shatham acted within the scope of his authority as outlined in the Indiana
Criminal Procedure Code, which empowers police officers to conduct investigations
and effect arrests. In the present case, Officer Shatham was allegedly responding to a
duly filed complaint lodged against Mr. Shah pursuant to Section 420 of the Indian
Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to the offense of cheating. The State maintains that
police officers have a legal obligation to uphold law and order, and ensure the proper
administration of justice.
ii. The Respondent further contends that Advocate Patel's unsolicited intervention during
the lawful questioning of Mr. Shah by Officer Shatham obstructed the proper course
of the investigation and ultimately precipitated the regrettable incident. However, the
law recognizes the authority of police officers to employ a reasonable degree of force
in specific circumstances, particularly when encountering resistance or non-
cooperation during the execution of their official duties. It is well-established,
however, that the application of force must be proportionate to the situation at hand
and should not inflict undue harm or injury. In the present case, Advocate Patel's
intervention constituted an unwarranted impediment to Officer Shatham's lawful
performance of his duties. Consequently, Officer Shatham requested Advocate Patel's
departure from the police station premises. Advocate Patel's refusal to comply with
this directive demonstrably exacerbated the situation, ultimately culminating in the
aforementioned incident.
iii. .According to the Section 129 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which permits the
use of force by police officers for the maintenance of public order and safety.
19
iv. The locus delicti, being the Badar Police Station where the alleged assault transpired,
establishes the territorial jurisdiction of the local courts, notably the Judicial
Magistrate First Class (J.M.F.C.) Court in Badar. The principle of forum conveniens
dictates that cases should be adjudicated by the court within whose territorial limits
the cause of action arises.
v. The Supreme Court of Indiana, as the highest court of this State, exercises its primary
function in adjudicating matters of constitutional import, significant legal issues, and
appeals arising from lower tribunals. While the alleged assault upon Advocate Patel is
not a serious matter, it is arguable that the incident does not present substantial
questions of law or implicate fundamental rights, thereby potentially falling outside
the purview of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. The established hierarchy of the
court system necessitates respect for the jurisdiction of lower courts, empowering
them to address matters appropriately situated within their competence.
vi. According to the Section 186 of IPC 1860 - Obstructing public servant in
discharge of public functions: This section deals with the offense of obstructing a
public servant in the discharge of his public functions. Adv. Patel's actions amounted
to obstruction of the duties during the investigation at the police station,
vii. The State contends that Advocate Patel's conduct may potentially constitute a
violation of Section 189 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which criminalizes the act
of threatening a public servant with injury to impede the lawful performance of their
duties. In the present case, despite repeated requests from Officer Shatham to vacate
the police station premises, Advocate Patel demonstrably refused to depart. The State
argues that Advocate Patel's intervention and subsequent refusal to comply with a
lawful directive constitute an act of intimidation or threat that falls within the purview
of Section 189. Furthermore, the State maintains that Officer Shatham's response to
Advocate Patel's alleged interference was justified under the relevant provisions of the
IPC. The State's position is that Officer Shatham's actions were undertaken in
accordance with the law to maintain order and discipline during the investigative
process. Given Advocate Patel's disruptive behavior, the State contends that a
measured response was warranted to ensure the uninterrupted progress of the
investigation and prevent further obstruction.
viii. The Respondent further submits that the applicability of Om Prakash and Others vs.
State of Jharkhand, 2012 (2012) SCC 426 . In Om Prakash, the central issue
revolved around the legality of a purported police encounter contested by the
20
complainant. Although the case addressed the validity of Section 197 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), the Supreme Court ultimately upheld the provision.
"In our considered opinion, in view of the facts which we have discussed
hereinabove, no inference can be drawn in this case that the police action is
indefensible or vindictive or that the police were not acting in discharge of their
official duty. In Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Limited, this Court has held that
the power under Section 482 of the Code should be used sparingly and with
circumspection to prevent abuse of process of court but not to stifle legitimate
prosecution. There can be no two opinions on this, but, if it appears to the
trained judicial mind that continuation of a prosecution would lead to abuse of
process of court, the power under Section 482 of the Code must be exercised and
proceedings must be quashed. Indeed, the instant case is one of such cases where
the proceedings initiated against the police personnel need to be quashed.
ix. The Respondent acknowledges the Petitioner's right to legal counsel while under
police questioning at the station. However, it is contended that Advocate Patel, while
entitled to represent the Petitioner, was nonetheless obligated to comply with the code
of conduct prescribed by the Advocates Act, 1961. The Respondent asserts that the
Petitioner's intervention during Officer Shatham's questioning of Mr. Shah ultimately
led to an unfortunate incident .
x. The Respondent further submits that the case of Matajog Dobey vs. H.C. Bhari is
distinguishable on the facts. In that case, the Apex Court dismissed allegations of
assault levied against police officers who were conducting a search of the Appellant's
premises. The Respondent emphasizes the following key points from the judgment
delivered by the Supreme Court
“ Whether sanction is necessary or not may have to be determined from stage to
stage. In our opinion, the observation of this Court that the mere allegation made
by the Appellant-police officer that the action taken by him was in performance
of his duty, will not force the court to throw away his complaint of which it had
properly taken cognizance on the basis of the allegations in the complaint will
have to be read against the peculiar facts of the case and not as stating something
which runs counter to the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in Matajog
Dobey ”
21
xi. Further placing the reliance on the case of

xii. The Supreme Court case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Prakash (1976) affirms police
authority to investigate and press charges based on evidence. This principle emphasizes
the lawful exercise of police discretion. In the Badar Police Station incident, where Adv.
Patel accuses A.P.I. Shatham of assault, Respondent No. 2 was acting within their scope
of authority while investigating a cheating complaint against Mr. Shah. The reported
altercation might be a heated exchange during the investigation. It is submitted that this
falls under the lower courts' purview or internal disciplinary proceedings. A.P.I. Shatham's
actions may be seen as a response to Adv. Patel's alleged interference. Any legal issues
should be addressed through appropriate channels, potentially at the lower court level.
xiii. In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand AIR 1977 SC 2447, the Supreme
Court emphasized the importance of allowing the police to carry out their duties
without undue interference, especially in the initial stages of an investigation. The
court held that the police have the authority to investigate and prosecute cases, and
their actions should not be interfered with lightly. The actions of Resp. No. 2 were in
response to Adv. Patel's interference in a police matter. Adv. Patel's attempt to
intervene in a complaint of cheating being investigated under Section 420 of the
Indian Penal Code is clearly obstructing the police in the discharge of their duties.
The altercation that ensued may have been a result of Adv. Patel's refusal to leave the
police station and the subsequent argument with A.P.I. Shatham. The unforeseen
incident at the Badar Police Station is a localized matter involving a specific
complaint and altercation. Since the issue primarily revolves around a scuffle between
Adv. Patel and the police officer during an investigation, does not raise substantial
questions of law or fundamental rights violations that warrant the attention of the
Supreme Court. The resp. requests the Hon’ble court that the matter should be
resolved at the lower court level or through internal disciplinary procedures within the
police department.
xiv. In the landmark case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Prakash (1976) 3 SCC 435,
the Supreme Court established the principle that police officers possess the authority
to investigate and institute charges based on the gathered evidence and surrounding
circumstances. This case underscored the significance of police discretion exercised
within the legal framework while discharging their duties.
Applying this precedent to the present situation at Badar Police Station, where an
allegation of assault has been made against A.P.I. Shatham by Adv. Patel, it is
22
pertinent to acknowledge that Respondent No. 2 was acting within the scope of their
authority while investigating a complaint of cheating lodged against Mr. Shah. The
reported altercation between A.P.I. Shatham and Adv. Patel could potentially be
construed as an outcome of a heated exchange arising during the course of the
investigation.
It is submitted that the aforementioned incident at the police station falls under the
purview of the lower courts or internal disciplinary proceedings. A.P.I. Shatham's
actions may be viewed as a response to Adv. Patel's alleged interference in an
ongoing police investigation. Any legal ramifications stemming from this incident
should be addressed through the appropriate legal channels, potentially at the lower
court level.
 According to the “Doctrine of Exhaustion of remedies ” Before approaching the

Supreme Court, it is crucial for the aggrieved party to exhaust all available remedies at
lower court levels. In this case, the appropriate course of action would be for Adv. Patel
to file a complaint with the local magistrate or the State Human Rights Commission
before considering escalation to the Supreme Court. By following the doctrine of
exhaustion of remedies, the proper legal procedures are respected. Though not explicitly
mentioned but it is related to the Code of Criminal Procedure ,1908 .
a) In the case of , L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) AIR 1997 SC 1125 ,
1997 (3) SCC 261, In this case, the Supreme Court held that the power of judicial
review vested in the High Courts under Article 226 and the Supreme Court under
Article 32 of the Constitution should be exercised judiciously. The court emphasized
the importance of respecting the hierarchy of courts and allowing lower courts to
address matters within their jurisdiction before approaching higher courts. This case
underscores the importance of exercising judicial review judiciously and respecting
the hierarchy of courts. It is arguable that the lower courts, such as the Judicial
Magistrate First Class (J.M.F.C.) Court in Badar, should be allowed to address
matters within their jurisdiction before seeking intervention from the Supreme Court.
b) In the case of Daryao v. State of U.P. (1961) 1961 AIR 1457 , 1962 SCR (1), the
Supreme Court reiterated the principle that the High Court should not interfere with
23
the investigation or trial of a criminal case unless there is a clear violation of

fundamental rights or a miscarriage of justice. The court emphasized the importance
of allowing the lower courts to handle criminal matters within their jurisdiction. It has
to be seen that the lower courts, including the J.M.F.C. Court, are competent to handle
criminal matters like the assault on Adv. Patel.
c) In the case of ,State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand (1998) AIR 1998 SUPREME
COURT 1344, 1998 AIR SCW 1219 , This case reinforces the doctrine of
exhaustion of remedies, which suggests that parties should first utilize all available
remedies at lower court levels before approaching higher courts. The court
highlighted the importance of following the proper legal procedures and hierarchy of
courts.Thus it is arguable that the advocates involved in the incident should follow the
proper legal procedures and seek redress at the local court level before considering
escalation to the Supreme Court .
24
2. IS HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT COMPETENT TO FORMULATE LAWS

IN SUCH TYPE OF CASE?
It is respectfully submitted that the Supreme Court's role is not to enact legislation in
matters of this nature. Rather, the Court exercises its judicial function by interpreting and
applying existing laws established by the legislative branch, comprised of the Parliament
and Legislative Assemblies.
The judiciary plays a vital role in ensuring the proper implementation of these legislative
enactments. Additionally, the Supreme Court possesses the authority to identify and
pronounce upon inconsistencies or ambiguities within existing laws, potentially paving
the way for legislative amendments.
i. The doctrine of separation of powers, a fundamental principle of governance,

dictates distinct roles for the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. While
the Indian Constitution does not adhere to a strict separation of powers model, it
nonetheless recognizes the importance of maintaining a degree of independence
between these branches.
The judiciary, including the Supreme Court, primarily functions to interpret

existing laws and ensure their conformity with the Constitution. Law creation,
however, falls within the exclusive purview of the legislature. Any endeavor by
the judiciary to formulate legislation would constitute an overreach and transgress
the established principle of separation of powers.
ii. The Indiana Constitution, specifically Article 245, meticulously delineates the
powers and functions entrusted to each branch of government. This article vests
the legislative power of each State in its respective State Legislature. Notably, the
Parliament possesses the authority to enact laws applicable throughout India,
while State Legislatures can legislate for their own states.
It is important to recognize that this legislative power is not absolute. The

Constitution itself imposes limitations, likely referring to the division of powers
between the Union (central government) and the States as outlined in Article 246.
Furthermore, unlike State laws, Parliamentary enactments can extend their reach
beyond the territorial boundaries of India.
25
In essence, these constitutional provisions serve to underscore the exclusive

authority of the legislature to enact laws, albeit within the constraints established
by the Constitution itself.
iii. Doctrine of Separation of Powers: This doctrine emphasizes the division of

powers among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government. It
suggests that the judiciary, including the Supreme Court, should interpret laws
rather than create them, highlighting the importance of the judiciary's role in
upholding the rule of law without overstepping into legislative functions.
iv. The doctrine of judicial activism describes judicial philosophies that advocate for
a more expansive role for the judiciary in shaping public policy and addressing
social issues. This approach can raise concerns, particularly from the perspective
of law enforcement, regarding potential judicial overreach into matters
traditionally entrusted to the executive or legislative branches.
v. The doctrine of judicial restraint emphasizes the principle of judicial self-restraint
and advocates for limiting judicial interference in policy-making or legislative
matters. This doctrine posits that the judiciary, including the Supreme Court,
should exercise caution in interpreting existing laws and avoid substituting its
judgment for that of the legislative branch. By adhering to this principle, the
judiciary helps maintain the vital balance of power within the framework of a
well-functioning government.
vi. The doctrine of constitutional supremacy is a fundamental principle that
establishes the Constitution as the paramount law of the land. This doctrine
dictates that all laws, including judicial pronouncements by the Supreme Court,
must conform to the tenets enshrined within the Constitution.
The doctrine of constitutional supremacy underscores the critical importance of

ensuring that all legal pronouncements and judicial decisions emanating from the
Supreme Court strictly adhere to the established constitutional principles. This
ensures a legal framework that operates within the boundaries set forth by the
supreme law.
26
a) In the landmark case of Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992) 1992 AIR 1858,
1992 SCR (3) 658, the Supreme Court did not uphold the Karnataka government's
decision regarding reservations in educational institutions. Conversely, the Court held
that the policy reserving seats in private unaided professional colleges violated the
autonomy of such institutions and the fundamental right of individuals to choose their
educational path without arbitrary state intervention. In the present matter, the court's
primary function is not to create new laws. Its role lies in interpreting and applying
existing legal frameworks, such as the Code of Criminal Procedure, to ensure that
police actions comply with the law and respect individual rights. The judiciary acts as
a guardian of the Constitution, upholding its principles and safeguarding fundamental
rights, as demonstrated in the Mohini Jain case and similarly relevant in the current
situation.
b) With utmost respect, the Respondent wishes to draw the Honorable Court's attention
to the seminal case of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950). This landmark
decision established the cornerstone principle of judicial review within the Indian
legal system.
The Court, while recognizing the judiciary's power of judicial review, meticulously
delineated its scope. The Court critically emphasized that this power does not extend
to rewriting existing legislation or crafting novel rights that are not already explicitly
enshrined within the sacred text of the Constitution.
c) In the case of , State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952) 1952 AIR 75,
1952 SCR 284, ,In this case the Supreme Court held that the West Bengal Special
Courts Act, 1950, which allowed the State Government to set up special courts with
altered procedures, was unconstitutional as it violated the fundamental rights of the
accused under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. Relating this case to the current
issue , it underscores the importance of adhering to legal procedures and respecting the
rights of individuals, including suspects and accused persons. The police must ensure
that their actions are in accordance with the law and uphold the principles of justice
and fairness, as mandated by the Constitution and judicial decisions like the Anwar Ali
Sarkar case. the Supreme Court reiterated the principle that the judiciary's role is to
interpret laws and not to legislate. The court emphasized that the power to make laws
27
lies with the legislature, and any attempt by the judiciary to usurp this power would be
unconstitutional. This precedent reinforces the judiciary's limited role in law-making .
d) In the case of , Kesavananda Bharati v. State of KeralaAIR 1973 SUPREME

COURT 1461, 1973 4 SCC 225, the Supreme Court of India upheld the doctrine of
basic structure of the Constitution. The court clarified that while the judiciary has the
power of judicial review, it cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution or
encroach upon the legislative domain. This case reinforces the limitations on judicial
law-making .
e) In the case of Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation , the Supreme Court of
Indiana held that Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalized
consensual homosexual acts, did not violate the fundamental rights of LGBT
individuals. The Court's decision effectively reinstated the criminalization of same-
sex relationships under Section 377. it is important to understand the role of the
judiciary in interpreting and applying laws. The Supreme Court, as the highest
judicial authority in the country, has the power to interpret laws and determine their
constitutionality. While the legislature is primarily responsible for enacting laws, the
judiciary plays a crucial role in ensuring that laws are in accordance with the
Constitution and fundamental rights. When it comes to issues such as the rights of
individuals, including advocates like Adv. Patel, the police must respect the legal
framework established by the judiciary. While the Supreme Court has the authority to
interpret laws and determine their constitutionality, the police must ensure that their
actions are in compliance with these legal interpretations.
3. WHAT RELEIF THE HONOURABLE COURT MAY GRANT ?

a) It is respectfully submitted that the relief sought from this Honorable Court
encompasses a range of legal remedies aimed at addressing the obstruction
faced by Advocate Piyush Patel in the discharge of duties by Assistant Police
Inspector Mr. Ganesh Shatham and rectifying the hindrance caused to the
administration of justice. The actions of Advocate Patel appear to contravene
various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), necessitating
appropriate action.
a. It is further submitted that interference with the administration of

justice may include acts such as manhandling, abusing, pushing,
28
assaulting, or insulting officers of law enforcement agencies, such as

the police, thereby impeding the discharge of their lawful duties. The
alleged involvement of Mr. Patel in the recording of Mr. Shah's
statement, despite being instructed to leave the station, resulted in an
untoward incident. Consequently, an FIR was registered against Mr.
Patel under Sections 186 and 189 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) –
for obstruction of public servants in the discharge of public functions
and for threatening a public servant to deter them from the discharge
of their duty, respectively.
b) It is further submitted that the Petitioner may not directly approach the
Supreme Court, as there exist various other remedies available to the
Petitioner. In accordance with the Doctrine of Exhaustion of Remedies, it is
incumbent upon an aggrieved party to exhaust all available remedies before
approaching a higher court. In this instant case, the Petitioner can avail
themselves of remedies by approaching the lower court or filing a complaint
with the concerned department, rather than expending the precious time and
resources of the Honorable Supreme Court.
c) The counsel for the respondent respectfully requests this Honorable Court to
direct the Petitioner to file the case in the lower court or avail any other
appropriate remedy.
d) It is further submitted that the Honorable Supreme Court does not possess
absolute authority to formulate laws on the matter at hand. According to the
doctrine of Separation of Powers, the authority to formulate laws is vested in
the legislative branch of the government. This principle was reiterated in the
case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, wherein the Supreme Court
upheld that while the Court can provide guidelines on specific issues, the
power to formulate laws is firmly vested in the legislative branch to maintain
the separation of powers.
e) It is further submitted that this Honorable Court may grant the remedies it
deems fit in this regard.
4). DO INTERPRETORS OF LAW REALLY NEED PROTECTION OF LAW
It may not necessarily require special protection beyond what is already provided to the
general public. The police's primary duty is to uphold the law and ensure public safety, and
while advocates play a crucial role in the legal system, they are not inherently in need of
additional protection compared to other citizens.
29
The existing legal framework, including laws against assault, harassment, and obstruction of
justice, applies to everyone equally. Advocates, like any other individual, can seek recourse
under these laws if they face any threats or harm in the course of their work. Providing
special protection to interpreters of law could potentially create a distinction that goes against
the principle of equality before the law.
Moreover, advocates are trained professionals who are equipped to handle legal matters and
navigate the legal system. While they may face challenges in their line of work, it is not the
sole responsibility of the police to provide them with special protection. Advocates can take
measures to ensure their own safety, such as working in safe environments, following
security protocols, and seeking legal remedies in case of any incidents.
In conclusion, while interpreters of law play a vital role in the legal system, the they do not
require distinct protection under the law beyond what is already available to all individuals.
Upholding the rule of law and ensuring public safety should be the overarching priority for
law enforcement agencies.
30
BEFORETHEHON’BLE SUPREME COURT

OFINDIANA
WRIT PETITION
WRIT JURISDICTION
CASE.No. OF 2024
INTHEMATTEROF
Adv. PIYUSH PATEL
(PETITIONER)
V.
1). UNION OF INDIANA
2). A.P.I. GANESH SHATHAM
(RESPONDENT)
FOROFFENCESCHARGESUNDER:
ARTICLE 32 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION
UPONSUBMISSIONTOTHEHON’BLESUPREME COURT JUDGE
PRAYER
Therefore in the light of issue raised, argument advance and authorities cited.The
council for the respondent most humbly prayer that the honorable
courtdispleasedtoadjuredboldanddeclare:
1. The Respondent respectfully submits to the Honorable Supreme Court of Indiana for
adjudication concerning the instant case's maintainability within its jurisdiction, grounded upon
established legal principles and precedents.
31
2. To elucidate on the Court's jurisdictional authority to promulgate laws pertinent to cases of

similar nature, emphasizing strict adherence to constitutional provisions and extant legal
frameworks.
3. To implore the Court to dispense appropriate relief as warranted by law to redress the
grievances delineated herein, thereby upholding the principles of justice and equity.
AllofwhichismosthumblyandRespectfullySubmitted
forwhichactofkindness,theprosecution
shallasindutybound,everpray.
FILEDBY:
(RESPONSE COUNCIL)
32

Moot Court Memorial RENEWED

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moot Court Memorial RENEWED

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HON’BLE JUSTICE SHIVRAJ V.

PATIL 2ND NATIONAL

ARTICLE 32 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION

UPONSUBMISSIONTOTHEHON’BLESUPREME COURT JUDGE

SR.NO. PARTICULARS PAGENO

IPC Indian Penal Code,1860

U/S Under Section

R/W Read With

SCC Supreme Court Cases

AIR All India Report

F.I.R. First Information Report

A.P.I. Assistant Police Inspector

JMFC Judicial Magistrate First Class

SCR Supreme Court Report

2) Legal commentaries by Indian legal experts

a) "Police Law and Practice" by P.C. Rao

1. "Police and the Law" by S.N. Mishra

Title: Lok Sabha Debates

Type: Full Text

Lok Sabha Number: 13

Title: Lok Sabha Debates

Type: Full Text

Title: Lok Sabha Debates

Type: Full Text

Law commission reports

AIR 1966 SC 424 : (1966) 1 SCR 702 of 1966.

2. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India

AIR 1997 SC 1125 , 1997 (3) SCC 261 of 1997

3. Daryao v. State of U.P. 1961

AIR 1457 , 1962 SCR (1) of 1961

4. State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand

AIR 1998 SC1344, 1998 AIR SCW 1219of 1998

5. Mohini Jain vs. State of Karnataka (1992)

1992 AIR 1858, 1992 SCR (3) 658

6. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala

AIR 1973 SUPREME COURT 1461, 1973 4 SCC 225

7. Prakash Singh v. Union of India

8. People's Union for Civil Liberties v. State of Maharashtra

(2014) 5 SCC 678

9. K. Veeraswami v. Union of India

1991 SCR 3 189 , 1991 SCC 3 655

10. D.G. Vanzara v. State of Gujarat

11. State of Rajasthan v. Balchand

AIR 1977 SC 2447

12. Om Prakash v. State of Jharkhand

13. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Prakash

(1976) 3 SCC 435

14. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Prakash

(1976) 3 SCC 435

15. Rajesh Kumar v. State of Bihar

(2011) 4 SCC 247

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

The following are the alleged facts of the case –

Time line of the case .

1). IS THE INSTANT CASE MAINTAINABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA ?

1. IS THE INSTANT CASE MAINTAINABLE IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME

2. IS HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT COMPETENT TO FORMULATE LAWS IN

3. WHAT RELEIF THE HONOURABLE COURT MAY GRANT ?

4. DO INTERPRETORS OF LAW REALLY NEED PROTECTION OF LAW ?

1. IS THE INSTANT CASE MAINTAINABLE IN THE SUPREME

xi. Further placing the reliance on the case of

 According to the “Doctrine of Exhaustion of remedies ” Before approaching the