Page |1

Team Code:142

IN THE HONORABLE COURT OF VALARIA

CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION NO. 5/2024

LAW STUDENT’S COUNCIL

PETITIONER

THE FEDRATION OF VALARIA

RESPONDENT

Memorial for Respondent

 Page |2

Catalog

List of Abbreviations………………………..

List of Authorities…………………………….

Statement of Relevant Facts…………….

Statement of Jurisdiction…………………

Summary of Arguments…………………..

Issue 1:whether law students’ Council has locus standi before the Supreme Court of Valaria

in the instant case?

Issue 2: whether the imposition pf the emergency by the President of Valaria is lawful?

Issue 3: whether the ban on the broadcast of speeches of Mr. Kareem Aziz is a violation of

his fundamental rights?

Issue 4: whether the imposition of emergency by the government of Valaria violated the

fundamental rights of the people of twin cities. If yes, which ones?

Detailed Arguments…………………………………….

Issue 1: whether law students’ Council has locus standi before the Supreme Court of

Valaria in the instant case?

Issue 2: whether the imposition pf the emergency by the President of Valaria is lawful?

Issue 3: whether the ban on the broadcast of speeches of Mr. Kareem Aziz is a violation

of his fundamental rights?

Issue 4: whether the imposition of emergency by the government of Valaria violated the

fundamental rights of the people of twin cities. If yes, which ones?

Prayer/ Relief Sought……………………………………………

 Page |3

List of Abbreviations

Non-governmental organization - NGO

Law Students’ Council –LSC

Pakistan Legal Decision –PLD

Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority –PEMRA

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights--ICCPR

Prime Minister-PM
 Page |4

List of Authorities

2024 SCMR 40 Supreme Court

1994 PLD 738 Supreme Court

Farooq Ahmad Khan Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan

2008 PLD 178 SC

1999 SCMR 1338 SUPREME COURT

PLD 1999 SC 57

PLD 1999 SC 57

PLD 1998 SC 388

1999 PLD 1026 SUPREME COURT

1999 PLD 139 LAHORE HIGH COURT

 Page |5

Statement of Relevant Facts

1. The federation of Valaria is South Avarian country and Arovia is the capital city of federation

of Valaria.

2. Arovia is the second largest populated city of Valaria.It is a business and educational hub for

all people. Arovia is also having all executive, federal and legislative office for betterment of its

masses.

3. Seraport is the ancient and densely populated city where citizens are living a normal life and

they are dependent upon Arovia for their livelihoods and education . Arovia and Seraport are

twins cities. As per their geographical location.

4. The Federation of Valaria have a parliamentary Government System where general elections

conduct after every 5 years. Valarian Justice movement (VJS) was a ruling Party and MR.

Kareem Aziz was Prime Minister (PM) who was removed by vote of no confidence by

opposition alliance. Mr. Sameer Malik took oath as new Prime Minister(PM) and he formed an

allied government with representation from each party involved to make the vote of no

confidence successful.

5.In response to his ouster, MR. Kareem Aziz former Prime Minister start pretest across the

country and urge everyone to fight for “real freedom”. He challenged the government in his

addresses and through his criticism.

6. In the result of protest and social media campaigns in which thousands of supporters of

Kareem Aziz participated. He claimed that he was removed from the government due to

intervention of the international establishment. He demanded the resignation of the current

government and date for the fresh elections otherwise the protest would be continued until the

fulfillment of his demands.

 Page |6

7. Government made different attempts to limit the protestors in terms of deploying

additional/extra police force, containers, water cannons and anti –riot force. However, none of

the attempts could succeed to stop the protestors.

8. On the 5th of March, Mr. Kareem Aziz urge the nation once again “ we are true Valrians who

love their freedom and liberty” We shall not let anyone to impose a government without our

choice. History remembers the freedom fighters.

9. After the address and many other speeches of Mr. Kareem Aziz two major violent incidents

took place between the forces and protestors which results in the injuries of both the sides.

Considering these circumstances Prime Minister Mr. Sameer Malik address the nation through

National Television and assure the nation to end this Anarchy. He also warns Mr. Kareem Aziz to

stop protest.

10. Government impose and emergency lock down in Arovia on12th March and all the

businesses of life were closed down for three weeks. Apart from this, Valarian electronic Media

regulatory authority was order to ban the telecast of Mr. Kareem Aziz’s Addresses and coverage

of March.

11. In the result of an emergency lock down, the inhabitants of twins cities were deprived to

carry out their educational and business activities due to closure schools and markets Crime

rate significantly rise due to scarcity of food.

12. Signthing the situations across the twins cities young lawyers council namely law student

council(LSC) come forward and took the situation as a violation of fundamental rights of

citizens. Above council raise his voice to lift the lock down to save the lives of labor class and

also requested the interior ministry to broadcast Mr. Kareem Aziz March as his fundamental

right provided by the constitution of Valaria.

13. LSC filed a public interest litigation petition before the Supreme court of Valaria on the 2 nd

April ,2024 for the restoration of fundamental rights of the citizens to up lift the emergency.
 Page |7

Statement of Jurisdiction

The supreme court has no authority to hear the case as the provisions of Article 236(2) ,

Constitution of Valaria bar the jurisdiction of the courts from examining the validity of any

proclamation which is within jurisdiction , coram sub judice or bona fide.

 Page |8

Summary of arguments

Issue 1: Whether Law Students’ Council has locus standi before the Supreme Court of Valaria in

the instant case?

No the LSC lacks locus standi (legal standing) to bring this Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before

the Supreme Court of Valaria. The LSC, despite representing law students, isn't directly affected

by the lockdown. Their educational activities can be conducted remotely if necessary.

The LSC have not exhausted all alternative remedies before approaching the Supreme Court.

Issue 2: whether the imposition of emergency by the President of Valaria is lawful?

Yes the President's decision to impose an emergency in Arovia was lawful. The incidents which

have happened posed a threat to public order and justified the use of emergency powers to

restore control. The emergency is a temporary measure to restore order and prevent further

violence.

Mr. Aziz's speeches and the protests fueled broader unrest, justifying the use of emergency

powers to prevent further escalation.

Issue 3: whether the ban on the broadcast of speeches of Mr.Kareem Aziz is a violation of his

fundamental rights?
 Page |9

No the ban on the broadcast of speeches of Mr. Kareem Aziz is not a violation of his

fundamental right. The governments’ ban on broadcasting Mr. Kareem Aziz’s speeches does not

his fundamental right of freedom of speech but the speech itself delivered by Mr. Kareem Aziz

is a violation of the Article 19 of the constitution of the Valaria and also the violation of Section

27 of the PEMRA Ordinance 2002.

Mr Kareem Aziz has made aspersions against the state institutions by levelling baseless

allegations create hatred among the people or is prejudicial to the maintenance of law and

order.

Issue 4: whether the imposition of emergency by the Government of Valaria violated the

fundamental rights of people of Twin Cities. If yes , which ones?

The Government of Valaria's imposition of emergency in the Twin Cities, while potentially

restricting certain fundamental rights, did not violate the Constitution or international law. The

emergency was declared in good faith to address a genuine threat to public safety or security,

and the measures imposed were necessary and proportionate to achieve that objective.

The Valarian government acted within its constitutional powers to protect public safety which

has been given under Article 232.

The measures taken were necessary, proportionate, and followed proper legal procedures.
 P a g e | 10

Detailed Arguments

Issue 1: Whether Law Students’ Council has locus standi before the Supreme Court of Valaria in

the instant case?

The Law Students' Council (LSC) lacks locus standi (legal standing) to bring this Public Interest

Litigation (PIL) before the Supreme Court of Valaria for the following reasons:

1. Direct Interest:

The LSC, despite representing law students, isn't directly affected by the lockdown in Arovia.

Educational activities can potentially be conducted remotely if necessary. The lockdown doesn't

directly hinder their ability to pursue legal education.

2. Specificity in Claims:

The LSC's claims about the lockdown's impact on Seraport's citizens are broad and lack specific

evidence. They haven't presented concrete data on how the lockdown disproportionately affects

Seraport's working class.

3. Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies:

The LSC have not exhausted all alternative remedies before approaching the Supreme Court.

They could have challenged the lockdown through lower courts or relevant government

departments before resorting to a PIL.

The LSC argued that they represent public interest.

 P a g e | 11

However,the reality is that:

 The lockdown is a temporary measure to restore order and prevent further violence.

 The Government is taking steps to minimize inconvenience caused by the lockdown

(e.g., online education, essential supply distribution).

The Court should have to carefully scrutinize their (LSC’s )claims before granting them full

standing in this case.

However ,The Supreme Court of Valaria held that a petitioner must have a direct interest in the

matter being challenged and cannot bring a PIL based on a theoretical or conjectural harm.

The Locus Standi of the party is fit there where there are no other alternate remedies but in the

instant case the petitioner has alternate remedies and it is good for the ends of the justice that

where there exist other forum9s0 to attend to the same , it is best that they first do so.

It is the failure of the LSC to not avail the procedural remedy to first wait for the decision of the

President about their application to him.

International Law and ICCPR:

While the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) emphasizes access to

justice (Article 2(3)), it doesn't guarantee automatic standing for NGOs in every situation.

National jurisprudence usually determines standing requirements.

Issue 2: whether the imposition of emergency by the President of Valaria is lawful?

Yes the President's decision to impose an emergency in Arovia was lawful. The incidents which

have happened posed a threat to public order and justified the use of emergency powers to

restore control. The emergency is a temporary measure to restore order and prevent further

violence.

Mr. Aziz's speeches and the protests fueled broader unrest, justifying the use of emergency

powers to prevent further escalation.

The President's decision to impose an emergency in Arovia was lawful based on the following

facts:

1. Justification for Emergency:

 P a g e | 12

 Public Disorder and Violence: The evidence of the violent incidents between

protestors and security forces are there as the twelve protestors and five police

personels got injuries. These incidents posed a threat to public order and justified the

use of emergency powers to restore control.

2. Proportionality of Response:

 Escalation of Protests: The lockdown, while a significant measure, was proportionate

to the threat posed by the large-scale protests.

3. Procedural Regularity:

Compliance with Valarian Law: The emergency declaration followed established procedures

outlined in Constitution of Valaria under Article 232.

4. Temporary Measure:

 Limited Duration: The emergency is a temporary measure to restore order and prevent

further violence. They will point out the timeframes set for the initial and subsequent

lockdowns.

5. National Security Concerns:

 Potential for Wider Unrest: Mr. Aziz's speeches and the protests fueled broader unrest,

justifying the use of emergency powers to prevent further escalation.

Here are some precedents which will support my arguments.

In the case of A.F. Thakur v. The Union of India, The Supreme Court of India upheld the

proportionality principle in the context of emergency powers.

International Law:

 ICCPR (Article 4): The Covenant allows limitations on rights "to the extent strictly

required by the exigencies of the situation."

Issue 3: whether the ban on the broadcast of speeches of Mr.Kareem Aziz is a violation of his

fundamental rights?
 P a g e | 13

No the ban on the broadcast of speeches of Mr. Kareem Aziz is not a violation of his

fundamental right. The governments’ ban on broadcasting Mr. Kareem Aziz’s speeches does not

his fundamental right of freedom of speech but the speech itself delivered by Mr. Kareem Aziz

is a violation of the Article 19 of the constitution of the Valaria and also the violation of Section

27 of the PEMRA Ordinance 2002.

Mr Kareem Aziz has made aspersions against the state institutions by levelling baseless

allegations create hatred among the people or is prejudicial to the maintenance of law and

order.

Thee ban on the broadcast of speeches of Mr. Kareem Aziz is not a violation of his fundamental

rights and is justified in the interest of public order and national security.

Provisions of the Constitution of Valaria:

While the Constitution of Valaria guarantees freedom of speech and expression under Article

19, this right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the

interest of public order, decency, or morality. Additionally, Article 19-A guarantees the right to

access information subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law.

a-Security of State: Speech that poses a threat to the security or integrity of Valaria can be

restricted.

b-Public Order: speech that incites violence or disrupts public order can be limited.

PEMRA Ordinance 2002:

The PEMRA Ordinance empowers the regulatory authority to regulate and prohibit the

broadcast of content that is against the ideology of Valaria, detrimental to national security, or

violates the code of conduct prescribed by PEMRA.

The speech of Mr. kareem Aziz is the violation of article 27 of the PEMRA ordinance which is

given below,

27. Prohibition of broadcast media or distribution service operation60:-The Authority shall

byorder in writing, giving reasons therefore, prohibit any broadcast media or distribution service

operator

from –
 P a g e | 14

(a) broadcasting or re-broadcasting or distributing any programme or advertisement if it is of the

opinion that such particular programme or advertisement is against the ideology of Valaria or is

likely to create hatred among the people or is prejudicial to the maintenance of law and order or

is likely to disturb publicpeace and tranquility or endangers national security or is pornographic,

obscene or vulgar or is offensive to the commonly accepted standards of decency.

In the present case, the ban on the broadcast of Mr. Kareem Aziz's speeches was imposed in

response to his calls for mass protests and civil disobedience, which posed a threat to public

order and stability. The ban was a proportionate measure aimed at preventing further escalation

of violence and ensuring the safety of citizens. As such, it does not amount to a violation of Mr.

Kareem Aziz's fundamental rights but rather a reasonable restriction justified by the

circumstances.

Issue 4: whether the imposition of emergency by the Government of Valaria violated the

fundamental rights of people of Twin Cities. If yes , which ones?

The Government of Valaria's imposition of emergency in the Twin Cities, while potentially

restricting certain fundamental rights, did not violate the Constitution or international law. The

emergency was declared in good faith to address a genuine threat to public safety or security,

and the measures imposed were necessary and proportionate to achieve that objective.

The Valarian government acted within its constitutional powers to protect public safety which

has been given under Article 232.

The measures taken were necessary, proportionate, and followed proper legal procedures.

Imposition of emergency by the Government of Valaria did not violate the fundamental rights of

the people of Twin Cities, and even if there were any restrictions imposed, they were justified

under the circumstances to maintain public order and security.

Arguments:

1-Preservation of Public Order:

The imposition of emergency was a necessary measure undertaken by the government to

preserve public order and prevent further violence and unrest. The escalating protests led by

Mr. Kareem Aziz posed a significant threat to the safety and security of the citizens,

necessitating immediate action to restore peace.

2-Constitutional Provisions:
 P a g e | 15

The Constitution of Valaria grants the government the authority to declare a state of emergency

in the event of internal disturbance or threat to national security. Article 232 provides for such

measures when the security of Valaria, or any part thereof, is threatened by internal

disturbance. Additionally, Article 245 allows for the deployment of armed forces to assist civil

power in maintaining law and order

3-International Law:

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has acknowledged the sovereign right of states to take

measures necessary for the maintenance of public order and security, even if it entails

restrictions on individual rights. In the case of Certain Expenses of the United Nations (Article

17, paragraph 2, of the Charter), the ICJ recognized that states have the authority to take

measures to safeguard their essential security interests.

4-Proportionality of Measures:

The actions taken by the government, including the imposition of emergency and temporary

restrictions on certain rights, were proportionate to the exigencies of the situation. The

government's primary aim was to prevent further violence and instability, thereby safeguarding

the fundamental rights of all citizens in the long term.

Prayer

1. Locus Standi:

This Honorable Court may be graciously pleased to declare that the Petitioner, Law Student

Council (LSC), has not the requisite locus standi to maintain this Public Interest Litigation

Petition on behalf of the citizens of Arovia and Seraport, as their fundamental rights have not

been violated by the actions of the Respondents.

2. Emergency Lock Down:

This Honorable Court may be graciously pleased to declare that the imposition of the

emergency lock down in Arovia by the Respondents is lawful and constitutional.

3. Freedom of Speech:
 P a g e | 16

This Honorable Court may be graciously pleased to declare that the ban on the broadcast of Mr.

Kareem Aziz’s speeches by the Respondents is not a violation of his fundamental right to

freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under the Constitution of Valaria.

4. Fundamental Rights:

This Honorable Court may be graciously pleased to declare that the imposition of the

emergency lock down by the Respondents has not violated the fundamental rights of the

citizens of Arovia and Seraport.

5. Relief:

Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Honorable Court deems fit and proper in the

interest of justice.

Dated this __ day of April, 2024

(Ali Raza and Adnan Nawaz)

Counsel for Respondent