TEAM CODE: T 27_P

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF GOKULDHAM

Writ, Original Jurisdiction

No. of 2024

IN THE MATTER OF

Popatlal Pandey ….Petitioner

v.

Union of Gokuldham ….Respondents

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

[This Memorandum has been prepared for Petitioner]

Date of Submission- 27th May; 2024

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES........................................................................................................ 4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ............................................................................................ 5

STATEMENT OF FACTS .......................................................................................................... 6

STATEMENT OF ISSUES ......................................................................................................... 8

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ................................................................................................. 9

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ................................................................................................... 11

PRAYER .................................................................................................................................. 22

2|Page
ABBREVIATIONS

3|Page
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES REFERRED

1. S.G. Vombatkere vs Union of India

2. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)
3. Sohan Lal v Union of India ( Sohanlal vs. The Union of India (UOI) (07.03.1957 - SC) :
MANU/SC/0091/1957),
4. PUCL v. Union of India (2003)
5. Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962)
6. Om Prakash v. Emperor, MANU/NA/0126/1947
7. Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (MANU/SC/0006/1950)
8. Debi Soron v. State of Bihar (Criminal P.C. (5 of 1898)
9. State of Bihar v. Shailabala Devi (1952)

STATUTES REFERRED
1) The Constitution of India, 1950
2) Indian Penal Code, 1860
3) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
4) The Public Order and National Security Act of 2024

BOOKS REFERRED
1) JN Pandey, Constitution of India, 57th edition 2020
2) MP Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 8th edition 2019

ONLINE SOURCES
1) www.indiakanoon.com

2) www.casemine.com

3) https://www.barandbench.com

4) https://www.legalservicesindia.com

5) https://indianexpress.com

6) https://byjus.com

4|Page
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner herein have approached the Supreme Court of GOKULDHAM through:

1. Petitioner in W.P.No. of 2024 :- Writ Petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution
of Gokuldham.

HENCE THIS PETITION BEFORE THE HON‟BLE SUPREME COURT OF GOKULDHAM.

The Memorandum sets forth the facts, laws and the corresponding arguments on which the claims
are based in the instant case. The petitioner affirm that they shall accept any Judgement of this
Hon‟ble Court as final binding upon itself and shall execute it in its entirety and in good faith. For
the sake of brevity, the material facts are placed herewith in the chronological order.

5|Page
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

PART-1

Popatlal Pandey is a renowned journalist in the country of Gokuldham, known for his investigative
reporting and outspoken criticism of govt policies. He is editor in chief of the popular magazine in
Gokuldham, called Toofan express, with his work being published in numerous national and
international publications.

The current ruling party at the centre in Gokuldham is Tapusena, in power since 2017. The founder
of Tapusena party is Jethalal (defacto head). Tapusena introduced a new law in the Gokuldham
Parliament namely, 'The Public Order and National Security Act of 2024 (PONS Act)' which grants
broad censorship powers to government authorities to curb alleged "anti-national" content. The
law was unanimously passed by Gokuldham parliament.

PART-2

The act defines Anti National Content as “Any content, whether in the form of speech, writing,
publication, or electronic communication, that is deemed by the government to undermine the
integrity, sovereignty, or security of the nation”.

and "Government Authorities" as any department, agency, or entity of the Government of

Gokuldham tasked with enforcing this Act.

Various appeal, penalty and safeguard positions are defined in the PONS Act.

On 24.02.2024, after rigorous investigation, Patrakar Popatlal published a series of investigative

reports, in Toofan Express, exposing highly critical Government’s actions and showed how the
ruling Government ( including Jethalal, Tarak Mehta, Bhide and ors misappropriated the funds.)

On 25.02.2024, Govt. acted swifly, and shut down further publication of the magazine,
subsequently, initiating legal action against Popatlal, accusing them of disseminating "anti-
national" content and undermining the country's integrity. They were arrested and detained without
bail under PONS Act, which provide for pre trial detention of Individuals, accused of spreading
“anti national” content.

6|Page
 PART-3

Aggrived by the same, Popatlal approached the Supreme Court, by filing a writ petition under
Article 32 of the Country of Gokuldham. In their Petition they clailmed that their Fundamental
rights were violated by the shutting down of the publication of the magazine and the criminal
proceedings initiated against them under the PONS Act.

The constitutionality of the PONS Act was challenged, claiming that the provision is vague and
gives the Govt. unbridled power to suppress Freedom of Speech and Expression. And in light of
the Fundamental Rights enshrined in the Gokuldham Constitution, the act’s provisions that grant
broad censorship powers and allow for arrest and detention violate the Freedom of Speech and
Expression and right to Personal Liberty. Therefore, they urged the Supreme Court to strike down
the "Public Order and National Security Act, 2024". as it being unconstitutional and incompatible
with the principles of a democratic society. The State however contends that the writ petition isn’t
maintainable and the provisions necessary to curb the spread of misinformation.

7|Page
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether the Supreme Court of Gokuldham is an appropriate forum to exercise the

jurisdiction in relation to the writ petition filed by Popatlal.
2. Whether the PONS Act violates the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression
in the Gokuldham Constitution.

3. Whether the provision in PONS Act allowing for the arrest and detention of individuals
without bail during the pendency of investigation violates the right to personal liberty under
the Gokuldham Constitution.

8|Page
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE ONE: Whether the Supreme Court of Gokuldham is an appropriate forum to exercise
the jurisdiction in relation to the writ petition filed by Popatlal.

The Supreme Court of Gokuldham is an appropriate forum to exercise the jurisdiction in relation
to the writ petition filed by Popatlal. As the Fundamental rights 19-1(a) and Article 21 are violated
so, the petitioner has the ultimate remedy to approach to the supreme court directly as under Article
32.

ISSUE TWO: Whether the PONS Act violates the fundamental right to freedom of speech
and expression in the Gokuldham Constitution.

The petitioner submits that their fundamental right of speech and expression has been violated by
shutting down of the publication of magazine and the criminal proceedings initiated against them
under the PONS Act. Article 19(1)(a) grants every citizen the right to freedom of speech and
expression. The restrictions imposed here by the government are unreasonable and against the
basic principles of democracy.

ISSUE THREE: Whether the provision in PONS Act allowing for the arrest and detention
of individuals without bail during the pendency of investigation violates the right to personal
liberty under the Gokuldham Constitution.

The counsel for the petitioner humbly submits that our client Mr Popatlal Pandey is a renowned
journalist, known for their investigative reporting and outspoken criticism of government
policies. Our Client, Mr Popatlal Pandey has often been invited to numerous news debate panels
owing to their researched depiction and nuanced portrayal of current socio-political affairs
without any bias. Any procedure established by law is required to be free of arbitrariness and

9|Page
must comply with the “principles of natural justice”. The PONS Act is arbitrary and void
because it violates article 14 of Indian constitution because it confers vague and undefined power
to the passport authority. it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution since it doesn’t provide
for an opportunity for the aggrieved party to be heard. It was also held violative of Article 21
since it does not affirm to the word “procedure” as mentioned in the clause, and the present
procedure performed was the worst possible one. We insists that striking down the law is
imperative as it grants arbitrary powers to the Center, jeopardising citizens’ fundamental rights.
Despite purportedly aiming to protect sovereignty and integrity, it is accused of being routinely
misused, often imposing restrictions that deviate from the concept of reasonable restrictions
outlined in Article 19(2) of the Constitution Fundamental Rights should be read in consonance
with each other and Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India must be read together.
Fundamental rights are entitled to every citizen by virtue of being human and are guaranteed
against being exploited by the state. Hence, these fundamental rights should be expansive and
comprehensive to provide optimum protection.

10 | P a g e
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE-1 : Whether the Supreme Court of Gokuldham is an appropriate forum to exercise

the jurisdiction in relation to the writ petition filed by Popatlal.

Article 19- 1(a) speaks about the Freedom to Speech and Expression :

All citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression;1

As Article 19 -1 (a) being a fundamental right, its violation guarantees the citizen to approach the
Supreme Court, whenever felt necessary.

Freedom of press or media refers to the rights given by the Constitution of India under the freedom
and expression of speech in Article 19(1)(a). It encourages independent journalism and promotes
democracy by letting the people voice their opinions for or against the government’s actions. 2

Vinod Dua vs. Union of India (2021)-3 This was a landmark case that upheld the value of freedom
of speech and expression. The paramount importance of granting the necessary freedom to
journalism to be a platform to voice concerns and serve as the fourth pillar of democracy was
recognized in this case.

Further, Venkataramiah J. of the Supreme Court of India in Indian Express Newspapers

(Bombay) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India4 has stated: “In today’s free world, freedom of the press is
the heart of social and political intercourse. The press has now assumed the role of the public
educator making formal and non-formal education possible on a large scale, particularly in the
developing world, where television and other kinds of modern communication are not still
available for all sections of society"

The purpose of the press is to advance the public interest by publishing facts and opinions without
which a democratic electorate (Government) cannot make responsible judgments. Newspapers

1
Article 19 in Constitution of India, available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1218090/
2
Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, available at: https://blog.ipleaders.in/article-19-indian-constitution/
3
AIR 2021 SC 431
4
AIR 1985 SC 641

11 | P a g e
being purveyors of news and views having a bearing on public administration very often carry
material which would not be palatable to Governments and other authorities. 5

Freedom of speech and expression under Article19(1)(a) of the press also covers the right to
criticize the government as well as the right to hold unpopular or unconventional views.

In State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kasab Jamat 6, the Supreme Court has held that the
expression ‘in the interest of general public’ in Article 19(6) is of wide import comprehending
public order, public health, public security, morals, economic welfare of the community and the
objects mentioned in Part IV of the Indian Constitution.

According to Article 21: “Protection of Life and Personal Liberty: No person shall be deprived of
his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”

This fundamental right is available to every person, citizens and foreigners alike.

Article 21 provides two rights:

1. Right to life
2. Right to personal liberty

Supreme Court ruled that Right to Privacy is "intrinsic to life and personal liberty" and is inherently
protected under Article 21 and as a part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution.
7

The nine-Judge Bench, in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) and Another vs Union of India and
Others (Writ Petition Civil No. 494 of 20128): said right to privacy was at par with right to life and
liberty, and that the verdict will protect citizens‟ personal freedom from intrusions by the state.
The historic fallout of the nine-judge Bench judgment, declaring privacy as intrinsic to life and
liberty and an inherent right protected by Part III of the Constitution, is that an ordinary man can

5
Ibid
6
AIR 2005 SCC 534
7
Right to Life (Article 21) - Indian Polity Notes, available at: https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/right-to-life-article-
21/#:~:text=According%20to%20Article%2021%3A,person%2C%20citizens%20and%20foreigners%20alike.
8
AIR 2014 10 SCC 1

12 | P a g e
now directly approach the Supreme Court and the High Courts for violation of his fundamental
right under the Constitution.

By making privacy an intrinsic part of life and liberty under Article 21, it is not just a citizen, but
anyone, whether an Indian national or not, can move the constitutional courts of the land under
Articles 32 and 226, respectively, to get justice.

By declaring that privacy is inherent to each and every fundamental freedom in Part III of the
Constitution, the Supreme Court has made privacy an essential ingredient of other important
fundamental freedoms, including the right to equality, free speech and expression, religion and
other important fundamental right essential for a dignified existence subject to reasonable
restrictions of public health, morality and order.

Article 32, states the Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part. These are:
1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the
rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed

2).The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in
the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warrant and certiorari, whichever may
be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.

3).Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2),
Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its
jurisdiction ill or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).

4).The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by
this Constitution.9

i.e. The Article 32 of the Indian Constitution gives the right to individuals to move to the Supreme
Court to seek justice when they feel that their right has been ‘unduly deprived’. The apex court is

9
All about Article 32 of the Constitution of India, available at: https://lawbhoomi.com/all-about-article-32-of-the-
constitution-of-india/#Nature_of_Writ_Jurisdiction_under_Article_32_of_the_Constitution_of_India

13 | P a g e
given the authority to issue directions or orders for the execution of any of the rights bestowed by
the constitution as it is considered ‘the protector and guarantor of Fundamental Rights’.

It is contended that, the Writ of Habeas Corpus, should be provided here as remedy, to the
petitioners by the supreme court. Writ of Habeas Corpus can be defined as:

Simply to ‘produce the body’, the main purpose of this writ is to claim against the unlawful
detention of an individual.

The purpose of it is to protect an individual from unlawful harm caused by the administrative
system.

A criminal who is convicted has the right to seek the assistance of the court by filing an application
for “writ of Habeas Corpus” if he believes that he has been wrongfully imprisoned and the
conditions in which he has been held falls below minimum legal standards for human treatment.

As here in this case Popatlal is wrongfully detained , hence a remedy is necessary in the form of
writ.

Doctrine of exhaustion of alternative remedies is not an 'Absolute Rule of Law' and there are
certain valid exceptions where the writ petitions are maintainable in the High Court and in such
cases, the petitioner ought not to be relegated to alternative remedy. The Supreme Court in the
case of Whirlpool Corporation v Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbaiv held that the under Article
226 of the constitution the High Court has discretion in regard to the matter of entertaining a writ
petition and the existence of alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to
operate as a bar in at least three contingencies namely:

1. The writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights
protected by Part III of the Constitution
2. There has been a violation of the principle of natural justice

14 | P a g e
 3. The order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is
challenged. 10

A similar view was adopted by the Supreme Court in the case of Harbanslal Sahnia v Indian Oil
Corpn. Ltd.vi Thereby the court upheld that the availability of alternative remedies is not an
absolute bar to the granting of writs under Article 226. In Rajasthan State Electricity Board v.
Union of Indiavii11, the apex court observed that "now it is a well-settled principle of law that the
availability of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar for granting relief in the exercise of power
under Article 226 of the Constitution". On the grounds that the appellants' writ petition was
dismissed by the Bombay High Court and that the Railway Claims Tribunal offered better
remedies, an appeal was filed to the viiiSupreme Court against this decision. However, the supreme
court ruled that the High Court cannot reject the writ petition or order the appellants to pursue an
alternate remedy because the respondent had acknowledged liability.

10
EXISTENCE OF ALTERNATIVE REMEDY AS AN OBSTACLE FOR AVAILING WRIT JURISDICTION,
available atrticles.manupatra.com/article-details/EXISTENCE-OF-ALTERNATIVE-REMEDY-AS-AN-OBSTACLE-
FOR-AVAILING-WRIT-JURISDICTION
11
AIR 1967 SCC 377

15 | P a g e
ISSUE 2: Whether the PONS Act violates the fundamental right to freedom of speech and
expression in the Gokuldham Constitution

The petitioner submits that the action taken by the Government , to struck down further publication
of the magazine and criminal proceedings initiated against them under the PONS Act, violates the
fundamental right to speech and expression.

According to Article 19 1(a) – All citizens have the right to free speech and expression. This
implies that all citizens have the right to express their views and opinion freely.
This includes not only words of mouth, but also a speech by way of writings, pictures, movies,
banners, etc. Freedom of the press is an inferred freedom under this Article. The right to freedom
of speech and expression also includes the right to communicate, print and advertise information.

Freedom of speech is guaranteed not only by the Indian Constitution but also by international
statutes such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (declared on 10th December 1948),
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the European Convention on Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, etc. 12

This is important because democracy works well only if the people have the right to express their
opinions about the government and criticise it if needed.
Freedom of the press is also an important factor in the freedom of speech and expression.
The second Chief Justice of India, M Patanjali Sastri has observed, “Freedom of Speech and of the
Press lay at the foundation of all democratic organizations, for without free political discussion no
public education, so essential for the proper functioning of the process of Government, is possible.”
In the Indian context, the significance of this freedom can be understood from the fact that the
Preamble itself ensures to all citizens the liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship.13

Article 19(2) allows the state to impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of this right in the
interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with
foreign states, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation,
or incitement to an offense, Restrictions must not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature so as to go

12
Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, available at: https://blog.ipleaders.in/article-19-indian-constitution/
13
Freedom of Speech - Article 19(1)(a), available at: https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/freedom-of-
speech/#:~:text=Restrictions%20on%20the%20freedom%20of,violation%20of%20their%20fundamental%20rights.

16 | P a g e
beyond the requirement of the interest of the general public. The phrase ‘reasonable restriction’
connotes that the limitation imposed on a person in enjoyment of the right should not be arbitrary
or of an excessive nature beyond what is required in the interest of the public. 14

In one of the earliest cases, Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras15, the Supreme Court struck
down an order banning the entry and circulation of the journal 'Cross Roads' in the State of Madras.
The Court held that freedom of speech and expression is essential for democracy and any law
imposing restrictions on this freedom should be scrutinized carefully.

This case established that freedom of the press is an essential part of the freedom of speech and
expression and can only be restricted on grounds specified in Article 19(2).

Also, in the case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (201516) the Supreme Court of India struck
down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which allowed the government to
arrest individuals for posting "offensive" content online. The Court held that the provision was
vague and overly broad, leading to misuse and curtailing the freedom of speech and expression
unreasonably.

This case underscores that any law or action by the government to restrict online speech must be
narrowly tailored and must not infringe upon the fundamental rights disproportionately.

It is further submitted that, the series of Investigative reports published as in Toofan express,
exposed alleged corruption within Highest levels of Tapusena Government. These reports were
highly critical of the government's actions and showed how the ruling government including kith
and kins of Jethalal , his friends Tarak Mehta, Aatma Ram Bhide and others misappropriated public
funds for their private gains.

14 A Bird's Eye View of the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression in India: available
at: https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/A-Bird-s-Eye-View-of-the-Right-to-
Freedom-of-Speech-and-Expression-in-India
15
AIR 1950 SC 124.
16
AIR 2015 5 SCC

17 | P a g e
The actions taken here do not actually fall under the reasonable restrictions category, including
the Security, Sovereignty and integrity of the country, Friendly relations with foreign countries,
Public order, Decency or morality, Hate speech, Defamation and Contempt of court. Rather the
act of publishing falls under the need of protecting the fundamental right of speech and
expression: To express beliefs and political attitudes and doing the same is absolutely necessary
for the efficient working of the democracy and the governments restrictions as imposed here in
this case cannot hence be classified as reasonable.

18 | P a g e
ISSUE 3 : Whether the provision in PONS Act allowing for the arrest and detention of
individuals without bail during the pendency of investigation violates the right to personal
liberty under the Gokuldham Constitution.

The counsel for the petitioner humbly submits that our client Mr Popatlal Pandey is a renowned
journalist, known for their investigative reporting and outspoken criticism of government
policies. Our Client, Mr Popatlal Pandey is editor-in-chief of the popular news magazine in
Gokuldham, called 'Toofan Express'. Their work has also been published in national and
international publications and they have often been invited to numerous news debate panels
owing to their researched depiction and nuanced portrayal of current socio-political affairs
without any bias. India’s Constitution allows the Government to restrict freedom of expression
under Article 19(2) as long as the restrictions were prescribed by law, were reasonable, and were
imposed for a legitimate purpose. The Constitution lists an exhaustive list of reasonable
restrictions that include “interests of the sovereignty, integrity, security, friendly relations with
the foreign States, public order, decency or morality or contempt of Court, defamation or
incitement to an offence.” A statute criminalizing expression based on unconstitutionally vague
definitions of ‘disaffection towards Government’ etc. is an unreasonable restriction on the
fundamental right to free expression guaranteed under Article 19 (1)(a) and causes
constitutionally impermissible ‘Chilling Effect’ on speech”.

In Indian Express v. Union of India, the Supreme Court ruled that freedom of expression
protects the freedom of print medium. Online expression has become one of the major means of
information diffusion, and accordingly it was integral to the enjoyment of freedom of speech and
expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a), but also could also be restricted under Article 19(2) of
the Constitution.

The Court discussed whether freedom of expression could be restricted and to what extent.
India’s Constitution allows the Government to restrict freedom of expression under Article 19(2)
as long as the restrictions were prescribed by law, were reasonable, and were imposed for a
legitimate purpose. The Constitution lists an exhaustive list of reasonable restrictions that include
“interests of the sovereignty, integrity, security, friendly relations with the foreign States, public
order, decency or morality or contempt of Court, defamation or incitement to an offence.”

Our client On 24.02.2024, after rigorous investigation, Patrakar Popatlal published a series of
investigative reports in 'Toofan Express' exposing alleged corruption within the highest levels of
the Tapusena government. These reports were highly critical of the government's actions and

17
1985 1 SCC 641

19 | P a g e
 showed how the ruling government including kith and kins of Jethalal , his friends Tarak Mehta,
Aatma Ram Bhide and others misappropriated public funds for their private gains.
In case of Vinod Dua vs. Union of India1 (2021)- it was held that the value of freedom of
speech and expression. The paramount importance of granting the necessary freedom to
journalism to be a platform to voice concerns and serve as the fourth pillar of democracy was
recognized in this case.
On 25.02.2024, the government acted swiftly and shut down further publication of the magazine.
Subsequently, government authorities initiated legal action against Popatlal, accusing them of
disseminating "anti-national" content and undermining the country's integrity. They were
arrested and detained without bail under PONS Act, which provide for pre-trial detention of
individuals accused of spreading "anti-national" content.

We the counsel from petitioner would like to point on the fact that the application of sedition law
in India has been put on halt following the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of S.G
Vombatkere vs. Union of India (2022). New cases cannot be instituted under the impugned
section and all prosecution that was happening has to be halted.

It is submitted that Defination defined under Sec 2 (a) of PONS Act, Anti National content, being
expansive and employing ambiguous language, provides authorities with latitude for misuse,
suppressing genuine expressions about the government’s lawful establishment. We insists that
striking down the law is imperative as it grants arbitrary powers to the Center, jeopardising
citizens’ fundamental rights. Despite purportedly aiming to protect sovereignty and integrity, it is
accused of being routinely misused, often imposing restrictions that deviate from the concept of
reasonable restrictions outlined in Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Also, underscored the need to
balance national security and citizens’ democratic rights, prompting a re-evaluation of the
colonial-era sedition law for alignment with modern democratic principles.

The PONS Act is in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India by not giving our an
opportunity to be heard. Hence, the true interpretation of Article 21, as well as its nature and
protection, are required to be laid down. Any procedure established by law is required to be free
of arbitrariness and must comply with the “principles of natural justice”. To uphold the intention
of the Constituent Assembly and to give effect to the spirit of our Constitution, Fundamental

1
2021 7 SCC 1.
20 | P a g e
Rights should be read in consonance with each other and in this case, Articles 14, 19 and 21 of
the Constitution of India must be read together.

Article 22 confers protection against arrest and detention in certain cases. In Kharak Singh v.
The State of U.P. (1962), it was held that the term “personal liberty” is used in the constitution as
a compendium including all the varieties of rights in relation to personal liberty, whether or not
included in several clauses of Article 19(1). An essential constituent of natural justice: “Audi
Alteram Partem,” i.e., every individual must be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard, not
granted to our client.

21 | P a g e
 PRAYER

In light of the legal precedents and principles cited; and in light of the provisions of the
Constitution applied and arguments advanced; and in light of the studies relating to the issue
referred to, the Petitioner humbly prays that the Hon’ble Supreme Court:

1. Declare that the Supreme Court of Gokuldham is an appropriate forum to exercise the
jurisdiction in relation to the writ petition filed by Mr. Popatlal.

2. Declare that the PONS Act violates the fundamental right to freedom of speech and
expression in the Gokuldham Constitution.

3. Hold that the provision in PONS Act allowing for the arrest and detention of individuals
without bail during the pendency of investigation violates the right to personal liberty under
the Gokuldham Constitution.

And pass any other Order, Direction, or Relief that it may deem fit in the Best Interests of
Justice, Fairness, Equity and Good Conscience.
For This Act of Kindness, the petitioner shall Forever pray.
S/d.

22 | P a g e