162 R

Law Student Council

(Petitioner)
VS
The Federation of Valaria
(Respondent)

Memorial for Respondent

1
Contents
List of Abbreviations ..................................................................................................................................... 3
List of Authorities ......................................................................................................................................... 4
Summary of Facts.......................................................................................................................................... 5
Statement of Jurisdiction .............................................................................................................................. 8
Identification of ISSUES ................................................................................................................................. 9
Issue 1: Whether law student’s council has locus standi before the Supreme Court of Valaria in the
instant case? ............................................................................................................................................. 9
Issue 2: Whether the imposition of emergency by the president of Valaria is lawful?............................ 9
Issue 3: whether the ban on the broadcast of speeches of Mr. Kareem Aziz is a violation of his
fundamental rights? .................................................................................................................................. 9
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? ....................................................... 9
Summary of Pleadings................................................................................................................................. 10
Issue 1; whether law Student Council has locus Standi before the Supreme Court of Valaria in the
instant Case? ........................................................................................................................................... 10
Issue 2: Whether the imposition of emergency by the President of Valaria is lawful? .......................... 10
Issue 3: Whether the Ban on the Broadcast of speeches of Mr. Kareem Aziz is a violation of his
fundamental rights? ................................................................................................................................ 10
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? ..................................................... 10
Detailed Arguments .................................................................................................................................... 11
Issue 1: Whether Law Students Council has locus Standi before the Supreme Court of Valaria in the
instant Case? ........................................................................................................................................... 11
Issue 2: whether the imposition of emergency by the President of Valaria is lawful? .......................... 12
Issue 3: Whether the Ban on the Broadcast of speeches of Mr. Kareem Aziz is a violation of his
fundamental rights? ................................................................................................................................ 15
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? ..................................................... 17
Prayer/Relief Sought ................................................................................................................................... 19

2
 List of Abbreviations
Law Student Council- LSC

Constitution of Valaria- CoV

Public Interest Litigation- PIL

Supreme Court Monthly Review- SCMR

International Law Association- ILA

European Convention of Human Right- ECHR

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights- ICCPR

Suo Moto Case- SMC

Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority- PEMRA

Pakistan Criminal Law Journal- PcrLJ

3
 List of Authorities
2013 SCMR 461 REL

PLD 1975 S.C.66

PLD 1999 SC 57

PLD 2008 SC 178

PLD 1965 Lhr. 642

2004 SCMR 164

2018 PcrLj 889

PLD 1965 Lhr 642

4
 Summary of Facts

1. The foundation of Valaria, a country with a population of 200 Million, 55% living in rural
areas while remaining lives in large cities like, Arovia, the Capital. Arovia being the capital
and second largest city is composed on 4 million populations. Being on education and
business hub, people from whole Valaria come here to seek education and do business.
Arovia houses the essential ministers, the parliament and the supreme court of Valaria.
Arovia is bordered with seraport which is the capital of serape province of Valaria.

2. Seaport has five major entrance routes, three of them passing through Arovia. Seraport an
ancient, densely populated city with a population of 6 million is less developed than Arovia.
It is home to the middle class and labor force that rely on Arovia’s economic activities for
their livelihoods. Around 5000 seraport students travel daily to Arovia to acquire education.
Due to this reliance of both on each other these are called “twin cities” throughout the
Valaria. The Federation of Valaria a parliamentary democratic country with elections every
5 years. Being a developing nation is not unknown to political unrest. In January 2024, the
ruling party, The VJS was ousted by opposition Alliance due to a vote of non-confidence.
Sameer Malik was elected as the 15th new prime minister who took his oath in first week of
January 2024. Sameer Malik formed an alliance government with representation from all
parties involved in Kareem Aziz’s ouster.

3. On February 22, 2024 Mr. Kareem Aziz announced a nationwide protest and a national anti-
government march in Arovia. In response to his ouster. He criticized the government as a
puppet and encouraged the nation to participate in the march urging them to join the
movement. On 29th Feb, thousands of supporters of Kareem Aziz gathered in Arovia for
March. Aziz claimed his ouster was not democratic act but an intervention by international
establishment. He announced he would continue protests until govt. resigns and amines date
for fresh general elections. He also predicted thousands’ from different cities would join
March to seek real freedom in the country.

5
4. Giving the circumstances, March of thousands moving towards the capital, Government
prepared with additional police force, containers, water cannons and anti-riot force to stop
protestors from entering Arovia’s’ main areas. Initially they attempted to limit protestors to
specific areas outside the city but none of these attempts succeeded. The situation was
exacerbated by thousands marching towards the capital. On March 5th, Mr. Kareem Aziz
reaffirmed that government is enemy imposed and addressed thousands of protestors during a
march.

5. After this and several other speeches two violent incidents occurred b/w protestors and
forces, resulting in injuries of twelve protestors and five police personnel, with two in critical
condition. Sameer Malik addressed the nation through national television after a cabinet
meeting with ministers and advisors on1oth March. The PM of Valaria announced an
emergency lockdown in Arovia, resulting in closure of schools, markets, offices and
businesses for 2 weeks. The lockdown was expected to last until March 26th. The valerian
Electronics Media Regulatory Authority was ordered to ban telecast of Kareem Aziz march
and speeches on govt. and private channels. After emergency period ended the president of
Valaria issued another order to impose the lockdown for next ten days due to increasing
number of protestors.

6. The emergency lockdown in Arovia severely impacted the twin cities affecting resident’s
ability to carry out their educational and business activities. Schools and markets were
closed, leading to closure of major educational institutes including Arovia Law College.
Food Scarcity and rise in crime rates were also reported possibly due to closure of markets
and businesses. The LSC Valaria largest network of law students and young lawyers has
taken action against lockdown in Arovia and sanctions on trade activities in Seraport. They
believe this vacates fundamental (rights of people of twin cities and Kaeem Aziz, as outlined

6
 in Constitution of Valaria. They are also requesting the ministry of interior affairs to lift the
ban on broadcasting of Mr. Kareem Aziz March.

7. LSC filed a PIL petition in Supreme Court in April 2024 to lift lockdown and provide
incentives for Supreme Court after exhausting alternate remedies and attempting to uplift
Arovia’s emergency.

7
 Statement of Jurisdiction

No, My Lord the LSC doesn’t has Jurisdiction to file PIL before the Honourable Supreme Court
because Current matter is not of the Public importance and also violation of the fundamental
rights. In this issue, the LSC has Malafide intention to acquire their private interest on the name
of public importance.

8
 Identification of ISSUES

There are four issues in the instant case which are mentioned below:

Issue 1: Whether law student’s council has locus standi before the Supreme Court of Valaria in
the instant case?

Issue 2: Whether the imposition of 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?

9
 Summary of Pleadings

Issue 1; whether law Student Council has locus Standi before the Supreme Court of
Valaria in the instant Case?
No, My Lord the LSC doesn’t has the Jurisdiction to file PIL before the Honourable Supreme
Court because Current matter is not of public importance and also of the violation of the
fundamental rights. In this issue the LSC has Malafide i intention to acquire their private interest
on the name of public importance.

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

The imposition of emergency by the President of Valaria is lawful because one of the pre
requisite like (internal disturbance) was present at the time of proclamation of emergency by the
president. That’s why it was the Courum Judice of the president of Valaria.

Issue 3: Whether the Ban on the Broadcast of speeches of Mr. Kareem Aziz is a violation of
his fundamental rights?
No, the Ban on the Broadcast of speeches of Mr. Kareem Aziz is not the violation of his
fundamental rights. Because Mr. Kareem Aziz in his speeches/statements is continuously
alleging the State institutions by leveling baseless allegations and spreading hate speech through
his provocative statement against state institutions and its citizens which is prejudicial to the
maintenance of law and order, also Contravenes the Sec 27 OF Pemra ordinance. Furthermore,
the speeches of Mr. Kareem Aziz were in contradiction of Valaria.

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?
Your honour the imposition of emergency by the Government of Valaria there did not happened
any kind of violation of the People of twin cities because emergency was impacted by
Constitutional Article 232(1) lawfully and with the Provisions of Article 233(1),(2),only those
rights were suspended which had the direct nexus with the situation.

10
 Detailed Arguments

Issue 1: Whether Law Students Council has locus Standi before the Supreme Court of
Valaria in the instant Case?
No, My Lord the LSC doesn’t has the Jurisdiction to file the Honourable Supreme Court of
public importance and also of the violation of the fundamental rights. In this issue the LSC HAS
Malafide Intention to acquire their private interest on the name of Public Importance.

Malafide of the Petitioner:

If we read the Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Valaria which describes that the Supreme
Court can exercise its original Jurisdiction and Suo moto powers.

Two Fold Riders:

One Side of Two Fold rider (Public Importance):

Subject to the two fold ride that the matter should be of public importance.

Other side of two fold rider (Enforcement of fundamental rights)

Subject to the two fold rider that the matter should relate to public importance.

Now it became quite clear that the LSC doesn’t have the Locus Standi to file PIL before the
honourable Court because if we unfold the one side of the two fold rider like enforcement will
come to know that there was no violation of fundamental rights of anybody including Mr.
Kareem Aziz and his Supporters and from their antigovernment activities.

This side of the two fold rider 184(3) regarding enforcement of fundamental rights by petition
side was negated by Supreme Court Judgment in a case of Dr. Tahir ul Qadri V/S Federation
of Pakistan.1

Constitutional Jurisdiction of SC under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. Scope….. Malafides

of Petitioner Effect…. Jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 184(3) not the constitution
was discretionary. Where the circumstances and facts of the case so warranted, Burden of Proof

1
2013 SCMR 461

11
was upon the petitioner to demonstrate as to which of his fundamental rights enabling the
Supreme Court to exercise Jurisdiction Conferred by said Article apparently missing in the
present court refrained from exercising such Jurisdiction on account of the evident malafides of
the petitioner.

The unfolding of the other side of the two fold rider under Article 184(3) relating to public
importance shows that LSC’s claim to file PIL for invoking the Jurisdiction of Honourable Court
was baseless because the matter was not of public interest or public at large instead it was just
based on particular individual and the worker’s interest. The LSC filed this petition because this
organization is one of the supporters of Mr. Kareem Aziz’s party. So this petition was filed on
private interest base not on public based interest. So the petition should be suspended
immediately.

Furthermore, the negation of the LSC’S Petitioner in context of public interest is proved
2
from a case of Manzoor Elahi V/S Federation of Pakistan in which J. Anwar_ul_Haq
observed that “a case doesn’t involve a question of public importance merely because it concerns
the arrest and detention of an important person like a member of the Parliament”…….. This
important person in our case is Mr. Kareem Aziz a political party’s chairman.

In order to station which is of acquire public importance, the case must obviously raise a
question which is of interest to or affects the whole body of people or an entire community.

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

The imposition of emergency by the President of Valaria is lawful because one of the pre-
requisite like (internal disturbance) were president at the time of proclamation of emergency by
the president. That’s why it was the Crum Judice of the President of Valaria.

Lawful due to the presence of prerequisite for emergency:

YOUR Honour, one of the man reasons to call the emergency imposed by the president of
Valaria is lawful because in Article 232 Clause (1) it is clearly stated that President can invoke
emergency in State of War and internal disturbance.

2
PLD 1975 S.C 66

12
Proof of lawfulness of emergency form the facts:

As it is clear from given facts that the protestors on the name of so called freedom were
spreading anarchy in the Capital and their numbers were increasing due to which lot of injuries
were happening in the Arovia which could turn into Casualties.

So, emergency was completely necessary lawful and hour of the need.

Since necessity knows no law and the will of the executive becomes the word of laws emergency
is considered as the ultimate measures to save the state from anarchy the entire exercise of these
exceptional powers is for protecting the constitutional order and unfolding fundamental rights in
as state.

Necessary steps for imposing lawful emergency by the report of international law
association,3 (ILA) 1986, Para.36 (xix)

1. Severity of cause defined generally as threatening the life of the nation.

2. Good faith on the part of imposing Government.
3. Proportionality(relating to geographical scope, duration and choice of measures
strictly required by the exigencies of the situation)
4. Proclamation or notification
5. Non- derivability of certain rights
6. Respect for other international obligation
7. Non- Discrimination
The above said steps by the report of ILS clearly dignify that in the current
scenario of facts emergency imposed by the president of Valaria is colossally
lawful because it fulfills all the conditions required in the above mentioned steps,
which would be clear by comparison with the hand lock, such as;

3
PLD 1999 SC 57

13
Comparison of ILS reports steps for lawful imposition of emergency:
1. The severity of cause defined for emergency imposition was threatening the life of nation as
mentioned internal disturbance in 232(1) of constitution of Valaria and anarchy which caused
injuries mentioned in the facts.

2. Good faith and bonafide was present on the part of Government while imposing emergency
because government did this to protect lives of citizens from further injuries and for maintaining
Law and order in the Country.

3. Proportionality was adopted for example geographic only effected area such AS Arovia was
put in emergency, and duration was also very minimal of two weeks and only those steps were
taken which was the need of hour.

4. Both of the orders of emergency one on 12-4-2024 And other on 26-4-2024 were proclaimed

5. Only derogatable rights mentioned in 233(1) of constitution of Valaria were suspended

6. Respect for other international obligations such as Article 4 of ICCPR Article 15 of the
European convention of human rights were made and only derogated.

7. No discrimination was made while imposing emergency. Everyone was dealt according to law
and order of Valaria. Point II of the text of order passed and directions issued by Supreme Court
Validate the imposition of emergency.

As the pre-requisite like internal disturbance was present in the current situation for exercising
the Jurisdiction by President under Article 232(1) of Constitution of Valaria to maintain Nation
Security of the nation.

So, this emergency is validated by the Supreme Court’s Judgment from the case Tikka Iqbal
Muhammad Khan and others V/S General Pervaiz Musharaf and others.4

It was held, if actions of 3-11-2007 were not taken, there would be having been chaos and
anarchy in the Country… Said d actions were taken by the Chief of Army Staff in the larger
interests of the state and for the welfare of the people in consonance with the maxim Salus

4
PLD 2008 SC 178

14
populist Supreme lex…… principle of Salus populist Suprema lex and the principle of state
necessity describe.

Issue 3: Whether the Ban on the Broadcast of speeches of Mr. Kareem Aziz is a violation of
his fundamental rights?

No, the Ban on the Broadcast of the speeches of Mr. Kareem Aziz rights. Because Mr. Kareem
Aziz in his speeches/statements is continuously alleging the state institutions by leveling baseless
allegations and spreading hate speech through his procative statements against state institutions
and its citizens which is prejudicial to the maintenance of law and order, also Contravenes the
Sec 27 of PEMRA ordinance and is likely to disturb public peace and tranquility. Furthermore,
the speeches of Mr. Kareem Aziz were in Contradiction with Article 14 of Constitution of
Valaria.

Defamation Ordinance 2002

Sec 3 of the Defamation ordinance 2002 define it as follows. Any wrongful act or publication or
circulation of a false statement or representation made orally or in written or visual form which
injures the reputation of a person, tends to lower him in the estimation of others or trends to
reduce him to ridicule, unjust criticism, dislike Contempt or hatred shall be actionable as
defamation.

The Ban on the Broadcast of speeches of Mr. Kareem Aziz didn’t violated his fundamental rights
because it is clearly evident from the given facts particularly from the paragraph no.5in the
response to his ouster on 22nd feb 2024 while addressing the nation he defame the govt. of
Valaria by calling it a puppet government. Furthermore, in his speech he used very provocative
statements like

“The nation at any cost must strive to get rid of this puppet government and should not
care of any consequences while fighting with this government.”

As per facts were given in paragraph no.8 while addressing thousands of protestors. On the 5th
of the March He said;

15
“I urge the nation to fight this government by all means available and teach them a severe
lesson.”

Your Honour as it is clearly evident from the facts given in the paragraph no 5 and 8 that the
speeches made by Kareem Aziz was very anti-government and the Ban on them was a matter of
national security, so fundamental right has no real meaning if the state itself is in endanger an
disorganize which is clearly evident from Nasur - ullah KHAN VS District Magistrate5

From Article 19 (Freedom of Speech)

“Subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law” While allowing freedom of speech and
expression as a fundamental right, it is also provided under Article 14 of Constitution that dignity
of man, Subject to law, the privacy of home are inviolable because this(Article 14) is the most
valuable right. Such principle is required to be extended further to the case where any defamation
is caused because human dignity, honour and respect are more important than comforts and
necessities. While exercising right of freedom of speech and expression one should keep in mind
that it may not transgress limits of freedom beyond the boundaries of Article 14 of Constitution
of Valaria.6

In state vs. Mati Ullah Jan the Islamabad high Court conflated both terms to state 7. The
print and electronic media are in no way vested with unfiltered liberty and impurity to publish
and telecast any material which is prejudicial to the interest of any person or institute or harm or
cause damage to reputation, honour and prestige of person or an institution. Any broadcasting
agency not free to telecast for promotion of the company or corporation or on the institution of
some quarter or according to its desire but its freedom is subject to amoral code of conduct and
such reasonable restrictions as may be legitimately imposed under the law in public interest and
glory of Islam.

5
PLD 1965 Lhr. 642
6
2004 SCMR 164
7
2018 PcrLj 889nas

16
Issue IV: Whether the imposition of emergency by the Government of Valaria violated the
fundamental rights of the people of twin cities. If yes, which ones?

Your Honour, there with the imposition of emergency by the government of Valaria there did not
happened any kind of violation of the fundamental rights of the people of twin cities because
emergency was imposed by constitutional Article 232(1) Lawfully and with the Provisions of
Article 233(1), (2), only those rights were suspended which had the direct nexus with the
situation.

Also the rule of proportionality was adopted means only those steps were taken which was the
need of hour and also were not repugnant to the fundamental rights of the people of the twin
cities which did not had the direct nexus with the situation in hand.

Contrary to violation of the fundamental rights of the people of twin cities there fundamental
rights were secured by the Government of Valaria with the imposition of emergency by using the
principle of Salus Populi est Suprema lex (The safety of the people is the supreme law) means
as it is evident from the paragraph 6 that thousands of people from different cities of the
country were going to join the anti- government march that’s why the national security as well as
people security of was also in danger which is quite evident from the given facts mentioned in
paragraph 9.

Two major violent incidents were witnessed between protestors and the forces, which resulted in
the injuries of 12 protestors and five police personnel, out of which two were in critical
condition.

The increasing number of protestors and above mentioned incidents of injuries and anti-
government march authorizes the state to impose emergency and suspended PLD 1965 Lahore
692 fundamental rights. This fact is also proven from the case of Nasrullah Khan. District
Magistrate8….That fundamental rights have no real meaning if the state is itself in danger and
disorganized. If the state itself is in danger the liberties of subjects are themselves in danger. It is
for the reasons of state that an equilibrium has to be mentioned between the two contending
interests at stake, one the individual liberties and he positive lights of the citizen which are

8
PLD 1965 Lhr 642

17
decreased by the constitution to be fundamental and the other need to impose social control and
reasonable limitations on the enjoyment of those rights in the interest of the collective good of
the society.

18
 Prayer/Relief Sought

1. In the light of facts stated arguments advanced and authorities cited, the petitioners
respectfully submit before the honourable Court that it should exercise its Jurisdiction to
uplift unlawful emergency imposed in Arovia to ensure speedy justice.
2. In the light of facts stated, arguments advanced and authorities, cited the petitioner
respectfully submit before the honourable court that it should unban the broadcast of
speeches of Mr. Kareem Aziz and should also grant some incentives to the people of twin
cities for the violation of fundamental rights.
3. The court may grant any other relief that it thinks fit.

19