Sunteți pe pagina 1din 2

Issue 1: The High Court of Barlok is legally bound to uphold the decision of the High Court of Macland. 1.

1 The High Court of Barlok is entitled to uphold the decision of the High Court of Macland.

1. An Ordinance issued by the President shall have the force of law at par with any enactment of the legislature as guaranteed by Art. 13 and Art. 123 of the Constitution of India. The ordinance necessarily needs the approval of both houses of parliament and cannot remain in force for greater than a period of six weeks subject to approval from both the houses. 2. Each High Court under Art. 226 has power to issue to any person within its jurisdiction directions, orders, or writs including writs which are in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari for enforcement of Fundamental Rights and for any other purpose. This power may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or residence of such person is not within those territories1. The cause of action herein refers to the implementation of the National Security Surveillance Ordinance in Barlok2 which falls directly under the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Barlok. 3. Any order altering the applicability, provisions of or determining the constitutional status of a central legislation has consequence throughout the territory of the country3. Thus, the provision of a central legislation or the act as a whole in one state renders it unconstitutional in the other as well. The pronouncement of the ordinance in Macland would be applicable to the state of Barlok as well since the Central Government is a party to the original suit, and thus has implicitly agreed to be subject to the decision pronounced. Thus, the provision of a central legislation or the act as a whole in one state renders it unconstitutional in the other as well4. If the High Court of Barlok is permitted
1 2

http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/jurisdiction.htm Factual Matrix, Para. 6 3 M/S. Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd v. Union Of India And Anr 2004 AIR 2321 4 Textile Technical Tradesmen v. Union Of India 1995 AIR 1729

to adjudicate upon constitutionality of the matter again it would lead to violation of the cardinal principle of double jeopardy.

1.2. The National Security Surveillance Ordinance is ultra vires the Constitution. 4. The right to privacy has been a part of right to life5 subject to certain qualifications. It is not an absolute right. However its interpretation is such as to dissuade criminal activity inasmuch It is only persons who are suspected to be habitual criminals and those who are determined to lead a criminal life that are subjected to surveillance.6 5. The right to hold a telephone conversation in the privacy of one's home or office without interference can certainly be claimed as right to privacy.7 The court also read this right to privacy as deriving from Article 19. When a person is talking on telephone, he is exercising his right to freedom of speech and expression, the court observed, and therefore "telephone-tapping unless it comes within the grounds of restrictions under Article 19(2) would infract Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution.8 6. No guidelines

5 6

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 Govind vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1975 2 SCC 148 7 PUCL vs. Union of India AIR 1997 SC 568 8 Ibid.