INTRA-MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

URN: R

TEAM CODE: J

IN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF MEGOLIYANA

ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION

W.P. (CIVIL) NO.OF 2016

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF MENGOLIYANA

IN THE MATTER OF
Association for Citizens Welfare...PETITIONER

V.
Union of Megolia...RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT Page 1

INTRA-MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDE X O F AUT H O RIT IES.......................................................................................................3 - 5
STATEME NT OF JU RI SDI CTI ON................................................................................................6
STATEME NT OF F AC T S............................................................................................................7
STATEME NT OF ISS U ES ....8
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 9

WRITTE N P LEA DIN G S 10 - 18

PRA YE R F O R RELIE F .....19

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT Page 2

INTRA-MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
A. TABLE OF CASES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.

S.R. Bommai Vs, Union of India, SC1994 AIR 1918

Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. , AIR 1963 SC 1295
Govind V. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1975) 2 SCC 148
Malak Singh v State Of Punjab & Haryana, AIR 1981 SC 760
M.P. Sharma V. Satish Chandra, AIR 1954 SC 300
Romesh Thapar v Union of India, AIR 1950 SC 124
Andhra Industrial Works v.. Chief Controller of Imports and Ors, AIR 1974 SC 1539
Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee v. CK Rajan and Ors. (2003) 7 SCC
546
BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of India (2002) 2 SCC 333
S.Sudin vs The Union Of India and Ors. WP(C). NO. 32529 OF 2007
6. Bhanwar Singh & Ors. v. State of M.P., (2008) 16 SCC 657]
Amerika Rai & Ors. v. State of Bihar (2011) 4 SCC 677

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT Page 3

INTRA-MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

B. TREATISES, BOOKS, REPORTS AND DIGESTS
Name of the Book, Treatise or Report with the Author or Publisher
1. Prof. M.V. Pylee, Constitutional Government In India, (Revised Edition, S.CHAND)
2. M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, ( Seventh Edition, Lexis Nexis)
3. V.N. Shuklas Constitution of India, Edited by Mahendra Pal Singh ( Twelfth Edition,
Eastern Book Publication)
4. P.M. Bakshi, The Constitution Of India, (Thirteenth Edition, Universal Law Publication)
5. Dr. J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India, (Fifty first Edition, central Law Agency
6. The Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women-1979
( CEDAW), Adopted by United Nations General Assembly
7. H.M. Seervai, Constituional Law of India, Volume Three, (Forth Edition, Universal Law
Publication, 2013)
8. United Nations Actions to Counter Terrorism and United Nations Global counter
Terrorism Strategy ( Fifth Review, July 2016)
9. Indian Evidence Act- 1872, Bare Act, Universal Law Publication
10. Criminal Procedure Code-1973, Bare Act, Universal Law Publication
11. Information And Technology Act- 2000, Bare Act, Universal Law Publication
12. Data From National Crime Record Bureau - 2014
13. Report of Sarkaria Commission 1983
14. International Convention for the suppression of the financing of Terrorism
15. International Convention for the suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism
16. International Convention For the suppression of Terrorist Bombings

C.IMPORTANT DEFINITIONS
1. Petitioner for the purposes of this memorandum shall stand for Association for Citizens
Welfare.
2. Respondent for the purposes of this memorandum stands for Union of Mengoliya
3. The laws of Megoliyana are in pari materia with the laws of India for the purposes of this
Moot Court Proposition. The names used in the proposition are only artificial and not to
wound or hurt any individual or institution.
4. decryption means the process of conversion of information in non-intelligible form to
an intelligible form via a mathematical formula, code, password or algorithm or a
combination thereof. [section 2(f) of Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards
for Interception, Monitoring and Decryption of Information) Rules, 2009]

D. DYNAMIC LINKS AND ABBREVIATIONS

1. www.indiankanoon.org
2. www.manupatra.com
3. www.livelaw.in

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT Page 4

INTRA-MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

ABBREVIATIONS
AIR
HC
Honble
p.
r.w.s.
SCC
SCR
u/s
w.e.f
UOI
Vol.
v.
Supl.
Art.

EXPANSION
All India Reporter
High Court
Honourable
Page No.
Read with Section
Supreme Court Cases
Supreme Court Reporter
Under Section
With Effect From
Union of India
Volume
Versus
Supplementary
Article

E. LEGISLATIONS
1. The Constitution of India, 1950
2. The Information Technology Act, 2008
3.Information Technology (procedures and safeguards for Interception, Monitoring
and Decryption of Information ) Rules, 2009
4. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
5. Public Property in the Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984
6. The Indian Penal Code 1860
7. Indian Telegraph Act, 1885

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT Page 5

INTRA-MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE PETITIONER HAS FILED THIS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE
CONSTITUTION

OF

INDIA

FOR

THE

VIOLATION

OF

FUNDAMENTAL

RIGHTS

ENUMERATED IN PART III OF THE CONSTITUTION. THE RESPONDENT MAINTAINS

THAT NO VIOLATION OF RIGHTS HAS TAKEN PLACE. THEREFORE, THIS HONBLE
COURT NEED NOT ENTRATAIN ITS JURISDICTION IN THIS WRIT PETITION.

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT Page 6

INTRA-MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Megoliyana was a colony of British Empire consisting of 510 princely states. It has got
freedom on 14th August 1947 and the British Government freed all the princely states with the
option of Independent status or to join the union of Megoliyana. Initially many of the princely
states were not willing to join the union but on a promise by the then Home Minister to surrender
only law and order, army and security to Megoliyana; gradually all the princely states agreed to
be part of the union on the condition that only three subjects will be transferred to union
government. After the Independence, Megoliyana has adopted a parliamentary system of
Government. The framer of the constitution of Megoliyana considered the diversity and
accordingly provided exemptions for culture and minority and to protect its identity guaranteed
this as fundamental right which is not absolute. The Constitution of the Megoliyana is the last
word for any issues relating to subject of law and governance.
2. In the state of Pan Goa, Cases relating to divorce have tremendously increased, extra-marital
practices are prevailing along with the social problems related to live-in-relationship.
3. In December, 2010 the Union Government has issued guidelines to authorities to install CCTV
cameras on all the streets and public places including near religious places, Garden and beaches.
This decision caused an uproar and protest across the states. The Chief Minister of Pan-Goa said
this decision can be implemented at the cast of my dead body. The union of Megoliyana made a
new regulation authorizing states to monitor all the celebration and state shall have right to get
decryption password of any encrypted data from any person across the union. Rule 5 of the
regulation which gave power to the union government to install CCTV.
4. People of Pan-Goa marched against this in the leadership of their Chief Minister and broken
all the CCTV camera and uploaded an encrypted video on social networking sites using slangs.
Union Government deployed Central Para Military forces and ordered its Central Investigation
department to take necessary action and also dismissed the elected Government of Pan-Goa on
the ground of failure to maintain Law and order.
5. The Union Government firmly believes that security of the nation is ground of formation of
the Union and the representative of all the princely states agreed thereto. Moreover, the cultural
diversity cannot be ground to ignore security of nation. Union Government submits that policy of
Pan- Goa government led to creation of bad name and this province is today known as center for
sex tourism which as a party to CEDAW the Union Government is committed to check. Further
we have an obligation to prevent any conduct which is threat to global peace and security. We
have committed to UN General Assembly to take necessary steps to tackle incidents of terrorism.

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT Page 7

INTRA-MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

7. The Supreme Court of Megoliyana put this matter for hearing on 25th Nov, 2016.

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT Page 8

INTRA-MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

STATEMENT OF ISSUES
The Respondent impugns three issues for consideration:
1. Whether the guidelines to install CCTV cameras near religious and public places and the
rules as well as regulation which authorized the states to get the password of encrypted
data are constitutionally valid or not?
2. Whether the Writ is maintainable or not ?
3. Whether the dismissal of State Government of Pan Goa by Union Government is valid or
not?

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT Page 9

INTRA-MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

Summary of Arguments
1. Whether the guidelines to install CCTV cameras near religious and public places
and the regulation which authorized the states to get the password of encrypted data
are constitutionally valid or not?
It is humbly submitted that the installation of the CCTVs at public places is constitutionally
valid. There is no infringement of Right to Privacy. The guidelines given by the union is valid.
The investigation is valid and authorization to state to get password of encrypted data is also
valid. The regulation is constitutionally valid because the government is determined to protect its
citizens from all types of threat either moral or physical. The installation of CCTV cameras shall
be seen as a precautionary step of the Union government to ensure the safety and security of its
citizens not only from the threats like terrorism but also from the psychological threats like
Extra-marital practices and divorces in the society of Pan-Goa. The installation of CCTV
cameras shall be seen as the Union governments initiative to protect the morality and social
order in the Pan-Goa state and hence, it must be welcomed. As far as the encryption of data is
concerned it is given in the facts of the case that the union of Megoliyana made a new regulation
authorizing states to monitor all the celebration and state shall have right to get decryption
password of any encrypted data from any person across the union. And since, there is no mention
about the special status for Pan-Goa in the fact it is therefore not an exception to that rule.
2. Whether the Writ Petition is maintainable or not?
The respondent humbly submits that there has been no violation of fundamental right in the
present case. Moreover, the petition has been filed prematurely. The detention of offenders in the
case is lawful. There is no violation of Criminal procedure. There is no violation of Article 22 of
the Constitution. A petition can be filed under Art.32 of the constitution only when the
fundamental right is violated. Thus, the writ petition is not maintainable
3. Whether the dismissal of the state government of Pan-Goa by the Union
government,

is valid or not?

It is humbly submitted that the dismissal of the state government of Pan-Goa by the Union
government is constitutionally valid. The dismissal of the state government of Pan-Goa is not
guided by the evil characteristics of party-politics. The dismissal of the elected government of
Pan-Goa is not the dismissal of the peoples will of the state.
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENTPage 10

INTRA-MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

WRITTEN PLEADINGS
It is humbly submitted that,
1. The guidelines to install CCTV cameras near religious and public places and the
regulation which authorized the states to get the password of encrypted data are
constitutionally valid.
I.

The installation of the CCTVs at public places is constitutionally valid.

The installation of the CCTVs at public places is constitutionally valid because it is related to the
public security and therefore the Union has a genuine reason to conduct surveillance. . If you
have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about. When youre in a public space, youre in
the eye of the public. So whats the difference in being watched by a closed circuit TV camera?
Even if you were caught picking your nose the police arent going to arrest you for that and no
surveillance officer is going put it on national television. Yes, a video surveillance camera in
public places is good. Helps in crime-prevention and works as deterrence. Post crime
investigation is easy and catching culprits is easy for law-enforcement officers. The police can
identify criminals recorded with cameras. Through surveillance cameras, the police can both
prevent crimes from happening and can quickly solve criminal cases with material evidence. In
addition, surveillance cameras protect against property theft, and vandalism also.
Records of NCRB 2014 shows that these kind of social evils invite child-prostitution, but also,
child-pornography. Street children or children from poor families and middle class families fall
prey to foreigners who attract them through the riches of the world and lure them into such
exploitation. Present policy of Pan- Goa government led to creation of bad name and this
province is today known as center for sex tourism. And hence it is a threat to the national image
and high moral character. If the Union Government adopts any policy to address the alarming
issues related to sex tourism and its post health consequences like STDs 1 that policy must be
supported by the state government as well. Sex tourism invites certain types of social threats like
Syndicate Crime2, human trafficking (especially girls), child prostitution and pornography,
bondage labor and organ trading etc 3. And it is the duty of the Union Government to protect its
1 Sexually Transmitted diseases
2 Linked organization of criminals indulged in heinous crimes.
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENTPage 11

INTRA-MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

citizen from any kind of exploitation4 and if the state government is not supporting these policies
then it shall be considered as a hurdle that the Pan-Goa government is creating in the welfare
schemes of the Union government. This is the obligation of Union as signatory to CEDAW to
prevent discrimination against women.
There is increasing threat to terrorism and as installation of CCTVs are examples of effective
measure to counter terrorism. It is obligation of Union to maintain internal as well as global
peace as the Mengoliyana is responsible signatory to UN Terrorist Suppression Conventions and
United Nations Actions to Counter Terrorism and United Nations Global counter Terrorism
Strategy ( Fifth Review, July 2016).
The Union has made regulation for installation of CCTVs for monitor in public domain to
maintain security of the people only. In Kharak Singh v. State of U.P.5 where the court discussed
the relationship between surveillance and personal liberty (personal liberty being guaranteed by
the Constitution) and found that unauthorised intrusion into a person's home would interfere with
his right to personal liberty. The right to privacy here was conceived around the home, and
unauthorised intrusions into homes were seen as interference with the right to personal liberty. In
this case there is no unathorised monitoring to any particulars house. The CCTVs are installed at
public place for security reasons only.
The right of privacy is not a guaranteed right under our Constitution and therefore the attempt to
ascertain the movements of an individual which is merely a manner in which privacy is invaded
is not an infringement of a fundamental right guaranteed by Part III. [Kharak Singh v. State of
U.P.6] . In Govind V. State of Madhya Pradesh 7, it was held that the right to personal liberty, the
right to move freely throughout India and the freedom of

speech create an independent

fundamental right of privacy as an emanation from them it could not he absolute. It must be
3 As per the data of National Crime Record Bureau (NCRB),2014
4 Article 21,23,24 and 38 of the Constitution.
5 AIR 1963 SC 1295
6 AIR 1963 SC 1295
7 (1975) 2 SCC 148
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENTPage 12

INTRA-MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

subject to restriction on the basis of compelling public interest. In Malak Singh v State Of Punjab
& Haryana8 where the Supreme Court held that surveillance was lawful and did not violate the
right to personal liberty of a citizen as long as there was no illegal interference and it was
unobstrusive and within bounds. Thus, the installation of CCTVs is not the violation of Article
219 of the constitution.
II.

The regulation which authorized the states to get the password of encrypted data
are constitutionally valid.

The regulation which authorized the states to get the password of encrypted data are
constitutionally valid and not in violation of Article 20 (3) 10 of the constitution which talks about
prevention against self-incrimination. In M.P. Sharma V. Satish Chandra 11, the apex Court held
and distinguished that to be a witness from furnishing evidence, and interpreted the former
to mean imparting knowledge in respect of relevant facts by an oral statement or statement in
writing made or given in court or otherwise. The latter included production of documents or
giving materials which might be relevant at a trial to determine the guilt or innocence of the
accused. Thus, self-incrimination in context of Article 20(3)12 only means conveying information
based upon personal knowledge of the person giving information. But where an accused is
compelled to produce a document in his possession which is not based on the personal
knowledge of the accused, in such a case there is no violation of Article 20(3). Here, in this case,
compulsion to provide password is not synonymous to convey self-incriminating material but it
is only the mechanical way to furnish evidence which is not violative of Article 20 (3). S.27 of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provides that during investigation when the discovery of
evidence by the police is led by some fact that was disclosed by the accused then so much of the
8 AIR 1981 SC 760
9 The Constitution of India
10 Ibid.
11 AIR 1954 SC 300
12 The Constitution Of India
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENTPage 13

INTRA-MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

information as relates to the facts discovered, may be proved irrespective of the fact whether that
information amounts to a confession of not. It was held that the provisions of this section are not
prohibited within the scope of Article 20(3) .
There are various statutory provisions like Section 69 Information Technology Amendment Act,
2008 gives power to government to intercept, monitor or decrypt any data or information stored
on any computer resources for the reason of public safety, public order etc.
The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 had also given power to central or state government to intercept
any message if it is against public safety and since then, as various laws came into force, the
government has got power. From this we can infer that these kinds of security measures ( like
Rule 5 of regulation as mentioned in the fact) had been taken since 1885 by the Union for the
purpose of security. The new rule is just a demand of current of situation only as a measure to
counter terrorism not a political stunt.
Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring and Decryption
of Information) Rules, 2009 - Rules under section 69(2) of the Information Technology Act,
2008 (after the 2008 amendment). in which it was laid down that no person shall intercept,
monitor or decrypt any information available on any computer resources except an order from
Home Secretary or Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs has been obtained to do so.
According to Rules, under Rule 4, it has been laid down that the central government has power
to delegate such authority to intercept, monitor or decrypt any information on any computer
resource to any agency.
Information Technology (Procedures and Safeguards for blocking for access of Information by
Public) Rules, 2009 has been passed by parliament in order to block access of any information
on any computer resource by public. According to Rules, the government has power to block any
information whether generated, transmitted, stored or received or hosted by any computer
resource for any reasons mentioned in section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 i.e.
sovereignty and integrity of India, defense of India, friendly relation with foreign state, security
of state etc. Thus, the investigation is also valid.

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENTPage 14

INTRA-MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

2. The writ which is filed under Article 32 of the constitution is not maintainable and
must be dismissed.
A Writ Petition can be filed under Article 32 of the Constitution for enforcement of
Fundamental Rights13, as guaranteed by part III of the Constitution 14. In the present case,
there has been no violation of the fundamental rights since, the action taken by the State was
in furtherance social security and thus cannot be termed as arbitrary or as one which was
without the application of the mind.
I.

The present writ petition has been filed prematurely.

The respondent submits the Court can entertain this case only if there is a violation of
Fundamental Rights and can step in under the Jurisdiction of Article 32 15. The petitioner is
raising a mere scholarly objection, without any locus standi. In the present case, there has
been no violation of the fundamental rights since, the action taken by the Union was in
furtherance of the performance of duties and its obligation to protect the people of Pan-Goa
from all kinds of threats of physical and psychological dangers and thus cannot be termed as
arbitrary or as one which was without the application of the mind.
No one has been displaced, there has been no forceful act and nothing has been done to the
hamper the freedom of society. Hence when there is no damnus, the Petitioner cannot seek a
remedy. Moreover, the Union Government has every power to hear matters concerning the
maintenance of law and order and take appropriate actions in that regard which forms the
core of the various powers provided to the Union Government by the Constitution 16 and here
13 Article 32(1) when r/w 32(2) itself states that, Article 32 can only be invoked for
enforcement of rights as guaranteed by Part III and, for issuing writs to enforce
Rights as guaranteed under Part III
14 Andhra Industrial Works v.. Chief Controller of Imports and Ors, AIR 1974 SC
1539 10, Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee v. CK Rajan and Ors. (2003)
7 SCC 546 50, BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of India (2002) 2 SCC 333
15 Romesh Thapar v Union of India, AIR 1950 SC 124
16 Article 355 of the Constitution of India
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENTPage 15

INTRA-MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

the state is a party to CEDAW. Further the State have an obligation to prevent any conduct
which is threat to global peace and security. The state have also committed to UN General to
take necessary steps to tackle incidents of terrorist. When an authority has been specifically
set up to hear the issues pertaining to the nature of this writ petition, the petitioner need not
waste the time of this Honble Court.
II.

The detention is lawful.

The respondent submits the Court that the accused had damage to Public Property and Public
Property is defined under sub clause (b) of section 217 which states that Public property shall
mean and include all public property movable, immovable or machinery in control and
possession of Central and State Government, local authority, company, corporation and
institution. Section 3 of the act divides punishment with respect to causing mischief with public
property in to two parts. The first part specifically relates to commission of mischief with respect
to any public property the punishment shall extend to five years and fine. Part two of the section
specifically provides for punishment for commission of mischief with respect to any building
concerned with production, distribution or supply of water, electricity, power or energy; oil
refineries or any other oil installations; sewage plants; factory and mines; public transportation;
telecommunications or any building or installation in connection to aforementioned shall be
punished with rigorous imprisonment of not less than six months extending to five years and
with fine. In case of S.Sudin vs The Union Of India and Ors.18, The writ petition arise from a
series of petitions of similar nature pertaining to damage caused to public property during strikes
and bands. The Court issued writ of mandamus directing the respondents to compensate persons
who suffered losses since the government failed to protect life and peaceful environment of
society. It was also held that holding of harthal or bundh is an act of criminal intimidation which
affect public order and security of the nation and is punishable under section 503 of Indian Penal
Code. Here it is mentioned in the facts of the case of that in the state of Pan-Goa, the similar
condition was about to arose as the State government was not only unable to take a preventive
step, but also, it was a party in the dismantling of law and order in state and hence, the Union
17 Prevention of Damage to Public Property,1948
18 WP(C). NO. 32529 OF 2007
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENTPage 16

INTRA-MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

government bound by its duties for protecting the territory from each and every apprehension to
its sovereignty had to take appropriate measures to re-establish the peace, law and order with
immediate effect, as it did. The counsel again plead that as it is given in the fact that more than
one individual were confined for the act and hence it constitute the crime under the heading of
unlawful assembly. Section 141 r.w.s 142 r.w.s 149, explanation second to fifth clearly states that
the activity of all the offenders fall under the definition of unlawful assembly.
For "common object", it is not necessary that there should be a prior concert in the sense of a
meeting of the members of the unlawful assembly, the common object may form on spur of the
moment; it is enough if it is adopted by all the members and is shared by all of them. In order
that the case may fall under the first part the offence committed must be connected immediately
with the common object of the unlawful assembly of which the accused were members19
Even if the offence committed is not in direct prosecution of the common object of the assembly,
it may yet fall under second part of Section 149 IPC if it can be held that the offence was such as
the members knew was likely to be committed. The expression 'know' does not mean a mere
possibility, such as might or might not happen. For instance, it is a matter of common knowledge
that if a body of persons go armed to take forcible possession of the land, it would be right to say
that someone is likely to be killed and all the members of the unlawful assembly must be aware
of that likelihood and would be guilty under the second part of Section 149 IPC. In Amerika Rai
& Ors. v. State of Bihar20, this Court opined that for a member of unlawful assembly having
common object what is liable to be seen is as to whether there was any active participation and
the presence of all the accused persons was with an active mind in furtherance of their common
object.
Thus, the decision of the Union Government regarding the detention is justified and cannot be
questioned before the court of law.
3. The dismissal of the state government of Pan-Goa by the Union Government is
valid.

19 Bhanwar Singh & Ors. v. State of M.P., (2008) 16 SCC 657]

20 (2011) 4 SCC 677,
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENTPage 17

INTRA-MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

I.

The dismissal of the state government of Pan-Goa by the Union government is

constitutionally valid.

Article 35521 of the Constitution provides that It shall be the duty of the Union to protect every
State against external aggression and internal disturbance and to ensure that the government of
every State is carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.22
It is very clear from the facts of the case that the state government of Pan-Goa was not able and
efficient enough to tackle the problem which had suddenly aroused. It therefore becomes the
duty of the Union Government to ensure peace and stability in the state. As per the Sarkaria
Commission23 the failure of Constitutional machinery can be examined under the four heads,
namely:
(a) Political crisis,
(b) Internal subversion
(c) Physical breakdown and
(d) Non-compliance with Constitutional directions of the Union Executive.
In case of Pan-Goa it was the duty of the state government to maintain Law and Order but, as the
facts, itself prove that the state government was not working properly. Also, it was only due to
the state government, that situations as such arise at the first place. In SR Bommai case 24 it was
held that Article 356 shall be used as a last resort. Here, in this case we have seen that the state
government of Pan-Goa itself was a part of the whole disorder caused. Hence, it was necessary to
dismiss the state government of Pan-Goa to ensure that the systematic Law and order is
maintained in the state.
II.

The dismissal of the state government of Pan-Goa is not guided by the evil
characteristics of party-politics.

21 The Constitution Of India.

22 Ibid.
23 Report of Sarkaria Commission 1983
24 S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India 1994 AIR 1918
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENTPage 18

INTRA-MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

Whenever two different party governments are ruling the Union and the State, it is alleged that
the Union government is misusing its power in the name of duties and this case is not an
exception to that. The Union government strongly believes in the principles of co-operative
federalism. The dismissal of the state government of Pan-Goa was a precautionary step of the
Union Government to avoid the dire consequences of internal disturbance. It is not a misuse of
the Constitutional Provisions under Article 35625 but it is rather a judicious use of Article 355 26 to
maintain Law and Order in the state of Pan-Goa. Before taking action under Article 356 27, any
explanation received from the State should be taken into account. However, this may not be
possible in a situation in which not taking immediate action would lead to disastrous
consequences.28
III.

The dismissal of the elected government of Pan-Goa is not the dismissal of the
peoples will of the state.

The dismissal of the elected government of Pan-Goa is not the dismissal of the peoples will of
the state because the state government cannot take the plea of democratic values to hide its
inability and incompetency to maintain Law and Order in the state. Ensuring a peaceful and
stable environment for its citizens is as much necessary for the state as to ensure the democratic
values. Mere dismissal of an incapable and incompetent state government can never be seen as
the dismissal of peoples will, rather it shall be seen as a concerned step of the Union government
towards the people of Pan-Goa.

25 The Constitution of India

26 Ibid.
27 Ibid.
28 Sarkaria Commission Report 1983

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENTPage 19

INTRA-MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

PRAYER
In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this Honble
Court be pleased :
1. The writ petition filed by petitioner should be dismissed.
2. In the alternative declare and adjudge:
a. The Respondents have not violated the fundamental rights.
b. Hold the constitutional validity of the guidelines to install CCTV cameras near
religious and public places.
c. Constitutional validity of the regulation which authorized the states to get the
password of encrypted data should be upheld
d. Constitutional validity of the dismissal of State Government of Pan Goa by Union
Government should be upheld.

AND/OR

Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.
And for this, the Respondents as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.

COUNSELS FOR THE RESPONDENTS

Place:
Date:

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENTPage 20