Summary of Arguments

1. It is humbly submitted that the present petition is not maintainable under article 32 of the
Constitution of India as the provision clearly specifies intelligible differentia and Art. 15
(3) of the Constitution allows the legislature to make laws for the benefit of women and
children. The present petitioner do not have the locus to file the present writ petition
against Sansa’s law because it’s made for the public interest and welfare of the society.
2. It is humbly submitted that the Sansa’s law is made for the interest of public at large and
it can be seen that the retrospective effect of the law is justified keeping in mind the
intention of the legislator before making such a law. It is well known that Sansa’s law is
made to ensure the safety of children in the society against sexual offences. Amending a
criminal law depends on the rational link between the issue at hand and the legislature’s
stated goal of protecting the public from the high risk of recidivism.
3. It is humbly submitted that Mr. Roose Bolton’s invasion of right to privacy is justified
keeping in mind the public interest and keeping a record of his personal data is for the
welfare of the society. The invasion of right to privacy is fair, just and reasonable. There
is no discrimination done on the basis of the law and it applies to each and every
individual who falls within the bracket of this law.
4. It is humbly submitted that Sansa’s law is not arbitrary as it fulfills the criteria of rational
nexus and intelligible differentia. It has been mentioned that the law has been made for
the benefit of the women and children of the society. Also, Art. 15 (3) of the Constitution
states that nothing can prevent the state from making any law for the welfare of women
and children.