IV JUSTICE MURTAZA HUSAIN MEMORIAL INTER COLLEGIATE MOOTCOURT

COMPETITION, 2017

IV MURTAZA HUSAIN MEMORIAL INTER COLLEGIATE

MOOTCOURT COMPETITION, 2017

BEFORE THE

HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF MANDIA

Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Under Article 136 of Constitution of Mandia

IN THE MATTER OF

Satish dhankar………………………………………………………….....…..APPELLANTS

VERSUS

State of Mandia ……………………….…………………………...………RESPONDENTS

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE DIVISIONAL BENCH OF

HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF MANDIA

[1]
Memorial on behalf of Respondents
 IV JUSTICE MURTAZA HUSAIN MEMORIAL INTER COLLEGIATE MOOTCOURT
COMPETITION, 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS ……………………………………………………………… 3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ……………………………………………………. 4
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………………. 6

SYNOPSIS OF FACTS………………………………………………………….. 7
STATEMENT OF ISSUES……………………………………………………… 9
SUMMARY OF ARHUMENTS ………………………………………………... 10
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED……………………………………………………. 12
1.THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BY SATISH DHANKAR 12
IS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF
MANDIA.

1.1There wasn’t any illegalities and irregularities of procedure and violation

of the principles of natural justice resulting in absence of a fair trial and
there was gross miscarriage of justice…………………………14
1.2 This case is not an exceptional case nor a suitable case for Supreme
Court to interfere. …………………………………………………….17
1.3 Question of law not evolved in this case
1.4 Appellants does not have Locus standi………….…………………….17.
15. This Hon’ble court does not have jurisdiction to hear the
present appeal …………………………………………………….18

2. THE PEHCHAAN ACT 2014 ENACTED BY GOVERNMENT OF MANDIA IS

CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID
2.1. The provisions of Pehchaan act 2014 does not violates any fundamental right guaranteed
under article 21 and 14 of Mandian Constitution………………………………
2.1.1 The right to life under article 21 does not includes right to privacy…………………….
2.1.2 The pehchaan act 2014 does not violates the right to privacy…………………………
2.1.3 There is not any violation of article 14 guaranteed under Mandia Constitution………….

PRAYER 29

[2]
Memorial on behalf of Respondents
IV JUSTICE MURTAZA HUSAIN MEMORIAL INTER COLLEGIATE MOOTCOURT
COMPETITION, 2017

ABBREVIATIONS USED
Sec. : Section

AIR : All Mandia Report

Art. : Article

Hon’ble : Honourable

Ltd. : Limited

SC : Supreme Court

SCC : Supreme Court Cases

u/s : under section

r/w : read with

Yrs. : Years

v. / vs. : Versus

Cr.L.J. : Civil Law Journal

& : And

Pg. : Page

Ors. : Others

Anr. : Another

Edn. : Edition

[3]
Memorial on behalf of Respondents
IV JUSTICE MURTAZA HUSAIN MEMORIAL INTER COLLEGIATE MOOTCOURT
COMPETITION, 2017

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATUTES:

 
 The Constitution of Mandia, 1950

CASES REFFERED: -

1. Kanu Ambu Vish v. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1971 SC 2256.

2. Ashok Nagar Welfare Association v. R.K. Sharma, AIR 2002 SC 335
3. Pritam Singh v. State, AIR 1950 SC 169
4. Nawab Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 278.
5. Sadhu Singh v. State of Pepsu, AIR 1954 SC 271.
6. Habeeb Mohammed v. Sate of Hydrabad, AIR 1954 SC 51
7. Nazuk Jahan v. Addl. Distt. Judge; AIR 1981 SC 1549.
8. Ibrahim Mallory Dillet, Re, (1887) 12 SC 1549.
9. Sultan Ahmad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1975 SC 1828
10. Haripada Dey v. State of W.B., AIR 1956 SC 757.
11. Raghunath v. State of Haryana, AIR 2003 SC 165.
12. Musheer Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2010 SC 762 (Para 56).
13. Alamelu v. Sate, AIR 2011 SC 715.
14. Narendra Pratap Narain Singh v. Satish dhankar, AIR 1991 SC 1394.
15. D.C. Mills v. Commissioner of Income Tax, AIR 1955 SC 55.
16. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Orient Paper, (1990) 1 SCC 176, para 2.
17. Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheb v. Satish dhankar, AIR 2006 SC 951.
18. Subedar v. State of U.P.
19. Birendar Poddar v State of Bihar, (2011) 6 SCC 350.
20. State of Orissa v. Arjun Das, AIR 1999 SC 3229.
21. State V. T.K. Sadashivaiah Din Kodimallappa, 1999 (1) CCR 152 (Kant.)

[4]
Memorial on behalf of Respondents
IV JUSTICE MURTAZA HUSAIN MEMORIAL INTER COLLEGIATE MOOTCOURT
COMPETITION, 2017
22. Jai Bhagwan v. State of Haryana, AIR 1999 SC 1083.
23. Jaspal v. State, AIR 1979 SC 1708.
24. Babu Khan v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 1960.
25. Baldev Singh v. State of Haryana, (2008) 14 SCC 768.
26. PadalaVeera Reddy v. State of A.P. &Ors, AIR 1990 SC 79.
27. Santosh Desai v State of Goa, (1997) 2 Crimes 666(Bom.)
28. Ramaashish Yadav v. State of Bihar, 1999 (8) SCC 555
29. State of Gujarat v. Raghu @ Raghavbhai Vasrambhai and Ors,
30. Lala Ram v. State of M.P., AIR 1994 SC 1452
31. R.J. Singh Alluwalia v. State of Delhi, (1970) 3 SCC 451.
32. Narendra Pratap Narain Singh v. Satish dhankar, AIR 1991 SC 1394.
33. Bhandra District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra,
AIR 1993 SC 59
34. Narain Singh v. State, (1997) 2 Crimes 464(Del.)
35. State of MP v. Dharkola, 2005 CriLj 102 (SC)
36. State of Kerala v. Bahuleyan, AIR 1987 SC 482
37. State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, [1992] 1 SCR 37.
38. T.Subramanian v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2006) 1 SCC 401.
39. Kali Ram v. State of H.P. (1973) 2 SCC 808.
40. Hardayal and Prem v. State of Rajasthan, (1991) Cr. LJ 345 (SC).
Books Referred:
 P.M. Bakshi, THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 12th Edition, Universal Law Publishing
Co Pvt. Ltd., 2013

 V.N. Shukla, THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 9th Edition, Eastern Book Company

 DR. J. N. PANDEY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA

Websites Referred:

www.lexisnexis.com

www.judis.nic.in

www.manupatra.co

[5]
Memorial on behalf of Respondents
IV JUSTICE MURTAZA HUSAIN MEMORIAL INTER COLLEGIATE MOOTCOURT
COMPETITION, 2017

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The appellant Satish dhankar has filed a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of
Constitution of Mandia in Hon’ble Supreme Court of Mandia against the impugned
judgment and order passed by Hon’ble Nelhi High Court.

The present memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments.

[6]
Memorial on behalf of Respondents
 IV JUSTICE MURTAZA HUSAIN MEMORIAL INTER COLLEGIATE MOOTCOURT
COMPETITION, 2017

SYNOPSIS OF FACTS

- Background of case -

 Republic of Mandia is an independent country with democratic form of

parliamentary government and autonomous judiciary which came into
existence on 15/09/1946 after 150 years of colonial rule.

 Government of Mandia to profile each of its citizen's introduced

pehchaan scheme and notified a notification on 12/10/2009 that states
that pehchaan policy aimed at curbing terrorism, hawala transaction
and foreign funding to suspect Ngo's.

 The government of Mandia formulated National Unique Identification

Authority on 30/11/2009 under chairmanship of Mr. Rajeev Khanna
for execution of pehchaan policy. This authority assigned its work to
private entities.

 The Private entities through Private vendors used to collect public data
on 11 basic details for making pehchaan card.

Emergence of The Pehchaan Act, 2014

 A Public Interest Litigation was filed on 22/1/2009 by petitioner Mr.

Satish Dhankar challenging this policy of pehchaan at Honrable High
Court of Nelhi contending that the policy violates Right to life
including Right to privacy and Right to Speech and Expression -
Specially Right to remain Silent.

 The Government of Mandia on 24/7/2014 made pehchaan card

compulsory for seeking benefits under social welfare scheme of the
Government.

 On the contention of the petitioner, Honrable High Court on 27/72014

passed an interim order directing the Government not to make
pehchaan card mandatory.
[7]
Memorial on behalf of Respondents
 IV JUSTICE MURTAZA HUSAIN MEMORIAL INTER COLLEGIATE MOOTCOURT
COMPETITION, 2017

 But on the application of Mandia Government on 287/2014 the

Honrable
High Court made Pehchaan Card mandatory only for non-benefit
schemes.

 During the Monsoon Session, the Mandia Government on 11/8/2014

enacted a law called Pehchaan act, it makes Pehchaan Card mandatory
for all schemes.

 The Act also provided Statutory basis to the National Unique

Identification Authority and covered whole chapter on data protection,
penalties and punishment for data leakage.

JUDGEMENT OF HON’BLE HIGH CORT

On hearing both the parties the Honrable High Court of Nelhi rejected the
Public Interest Litigation and regarded Right to Privacy as a common law
and Right to deny to Government can't be held as Fundamental Right in
Light to the necessity to protect terrorism and other Security related problem.

- Appeal to Hon’ble Supreme Court -

The petitioner challenged the decision of Honourable High Court in

Supreme Court of Mandia through a Special Leave Petition under
Mandia Constitution.

[8]
Memorial on behalf of Respondents
IV JUSTICE MURTAZA HUSAIN MEMORIAL INTER COLLEGIATE MOOTCOURT
COMPETITION, 2017

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BY SATISH DHANKAR

IS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF MANDIA?

2. THE PEHCHAAN ACT 2014 ENACTED BY GOVERNMENT OF MANDIA

IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID

 The right to life under article 21 does not includes right to privacy

[9]
Memorial on behalf of Respondents
 IV JUSTICE MURTAZA HUSAIN MEMORIAL INTER COLLEGIATE MOOTCOURT
COMPETITION, 2017

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BY THE SATISH DHANKAR IS

NOT MAINTAINABLE IN HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF MANDIA.
 The Satish dhankar filed an appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution of Mandia in Hon’ble
Supreme Court against the judgment and order of Hon’ble High Court of Nelhi

It is humbly submitted that this appeal from the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Nelhi shall
not be allowed by Hon’ble Supreme Court.

2. THE PEHCHAAN ACT 2014 ENACTED BY GOVERNMENT OF MANDIA IS

CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID.

Memorial on behalf of Respondents

IV JUSTICE MURTAZA HUSAIN MEMORIAL INTER COLLEGIATE MOOTCOURT
COMPETITION, 2017

[11]
Memorial on behalf of Respondents
 IV JUSTICE MURTAZA HUSAIN MEMORIAL INTER COLLEGIATE MOOTCOURT
COMPETITION, 2017

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BY THE SATISH DHANKAR IS NOT

MAINTAINABLE IN HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF MANDIA.
 
Art. 136 of Constitution of Mandia – Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant
special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any
cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of Mandia.1

 The Satish dhankar filed an appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution of Mandia in Hon’ble
Supreme Court against the judgment and order of Hon’ble High Court of Nelhi.

 It is humbly submitted that this appeal from the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of nelhi
shall not be allowed by Hon’ble Supreme Court.

1.1 There wasn’t any illegality or any irregularity of procedure or violation of the
principles of natural justice resulting in absence of fair trial and grave
miscarriage of justice.

 It is well settled that for granting special leave to appeal, Hon’ble Supreme Court looks at the
prima facie legality of judgment of High Court. If judgment of High Court does not violate
principle of Natural Justice, then this court does not grant special leave to appeal.

 It is most humbly submitted that the judgement of learned high court rejecting the PIL filed
by the present appellant was fare just and concurrence with principle of natural justice
and there does not exist any substantial perversity thus the present appeal filed
by the appellant is beract of any substance

 when any authority working then its legality is presumed so there is no illegalities in the
judgement given by the hon’ble high court.

 The Judgement of hon’ble high court is given after the listen arguments of both of the parties
of this present case which shows that there is no violation of the principles of natural justice

1
P.M. BAKSHI, The Constitution of Mandia, 12thedition, Universal law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2013, Pg148

[12]
Memorial on behalf of Respondents
IV JUSTICE MURTAZA HUSAIN MEMORIAL INTER COLLEGIATE MOOTCOURT
COMPETITION, 2017

 Right to privacy is not a constitutional right this statement is learned from the past
judgements of hon’ble courts so it is clear that the ground of this appeal is totally incorrect as
any illegality or any irregularity of procedure or violation of the principles of natural justice.

 That the petitioner submitted there is violation of their right to equality guaranteed under
Art.14 of Indian constitution as right to privacy is not a fundamental right then there is no
need to talk about the reasonability test of the pehchaan act 2014.
 That the government of Mandia formulated a policy named Pehchaan for profiting
of its citizens and to provide them a card called Pehchaan card, that the government order
after some time this GO becomes a law called as Pehchaan act as hon’ble high court give
a chance to petitioner to filed a fresh petition which shows that any illegality or any
irregularity of procedure or violation of the principles of natural justice

 As held in case of Kanu Ambu Vish v. The State of Maharashtra, 2Hon’ble supreme
Court observed that – “The High Court has power on a review or reverse the order of
acquittal, yet in doing so it should not only consider all matters on record including the
reasons given by the Trial Court in, but should particularly consider those aspects which are
in favour of the accused and ought not also to act on conjectures or surmises nor on
inferences which do not arise on the evidence in the case.”
 In case of chikaranga Gowda and Ors. V state of Mysore, The supreme court held that –“it is a
well settled practise of this court that except where there has been a illegality, or any irregularity of
procedure, or a violation of the principal of natural justice, this court does not permit a third review
of, thus in this case there is no need of review of fact as the judgement of high court is fair, just and
according to law.

 the appellant was given fair trial. They were given fair opportunity. Thus, there wasn’t any
illegality in the judgment of Hon’ble High Court neither there was any irregularity of procedure
or violation of principle of natural justice.

It is well settled practice of Supreme Court that except where there has been a
illegality or any irregularity of procedure or violation of the principle of natural
justice resulting in the absence of a fair trial or gross miscarriage of justice, the
Supreme Court does not permit a review of facts. Thus, in this case there is no
need of third review of facts as the judgment of Hon’ble High Court is fair, just
and according to law.

2
Kanu Ambu Vish v. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1971 SC 2256.
chikaranga Gowda and Ors. V state of Mysore
[13]
Memorial on behalf of Respondents
 IV JUSTICE MURTAZA HUSAIN MEMORIAL INTER COLLEGIATE MOOTCOURT
COMPETITION, 2017

1.2 This case is not an exceptional case nor a suitable case for Supreme Court to interfere.

 It is most humbly submitted that this case is not an exceptional case nor a suitable case for
supreme court to interfere.

 As held in the case of Ashok Nagar Welfare Association v. R.K. Sharma3 “It is well
settled that article 136 does not confer a right of appeal on any party, but it confers a
discretionary power on the Supreme Court to interfere in the suitable cases”

 As per guidelines laid down in no. of leading cases like Pritam Singh v. State4 which
explains that how the discretion will be exercised generally in granting special leave to
appeal, the Supreme Court observed as follows:

“The wide discretionary power with which the court is invested under it, is to be
exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases only”

 The residuary jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Art. 136 has more frequently been
invoked in civil appeals, But the Supreme Court has not been disposed to interfere lightly.
It has more than once been declared in Nawab Singh V. state of U.P.5; Sadhu Singh V.

State of Pepsu6; Habeeb Mohammed V. State of Hyderabad7;

“That the Supreme Court will not grant special leave to appeal under Art. 136(1) of the
Constitution of Mandia unless it is shown that Special and Exceptional circumstances exist, that
substantial and grave injustice has been done and the case in question presents features of
sufficient gravity to warrant a review of the decision appealed against. Further, in the exercise
of its special appellate jurisdiction, the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent
findings of the below court”

 In NazukJahan v. Addl. Distt. Judge8, the Hon’ble Supreme Court said that, “Every
error, even of law, does not justify interference under Art. 136”

3
Ashok Nagar Welfare Association v. R.K. Sharma, AIR 2002 SC 335
4
Pritam Singhv. State, AIR 1950 SC 169
5
Nawab Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 278.
6
Sadhu Singh v. State of Pepsu, AIR 1954 SC 271.
Habeeb Mohammed v. Sate of Hyderabad, AIR 1954 SC 51
Nazuk Jahan v. Addl. Distt. Judge; AIR 1981 SC 1549.
[14]
Memorial on behalf of Respondents
 IV JUSTICE MURTAZA HUSAIN MEMORIAL INTER COLLEGIATE MOOTCOURT
COMPETITION, 2017

 In Ibrahim Mallory Dillet, Re9, it was observed that Privy Council would not review
civil proceedings unless it be shown that by a disregard of the forms of legal process or
some violation of the principles of natural justice or otherwise, substantial or grave
injustice has been done.

 In Sultan Ahmad v. State of Bihar10it was held that- “Normally Supreme Court does not
interfere with concurrent findings of Trial court and High Court unless there is sufficient
ground to do so.”


11
 In Haripada Dey v. State of W.B. - it was held that - “S.C. will grant Special leave only if
there has been gross miscarriage of justice or departure from legal procedure, such as, which
vitiates the whole trial or if the finding of the fact were such as shocking to the
judicial conscience of the court.”

 The Hon’ble High Court followed due procedure of law and Principles of natural justice
in its decision of permission to make pehchaan act 2014 is constitutional of State of Mandia,
In an appeal under Article 136 Court does not normally appreciate the fact by itself and goes
into the question of credibility of witnesses.

Thus, it is humbly submitted that in this case no Special or exceptional circumstances

exists, that sufficient or grave injustice have been done and the case lacks sufficient
gravity to warrant a review of decision appealed against.

9
Ibrahim Mallory Dillet, Re, (1887) 12 SC 1549.
10
Sultan Ahmad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1975 SC 1828
11
Haripada Dey v. State of W.B., AIR 1956 SC 757.

[15]
Memorial on behalf of Respondents
 IV JUSTICE MURTAZA HUSAIN MEMORIAL INTER COLLEGIATE MOOTCOURT
COMPETITION, 2017


1.3 There is no question of facts or question of law involved in this case.

 it is most humbly submitted that the right to privacy is not a constitutional right
this statement is learned from the past judgements of hon’ble courts

 it is most humbly submitted that in case of Rajagopal vs. state of T.N

despite agreeing that right to privacy is the emanation of art.19 and 21 of the
constitution, the top court held that right to privacy cannot be made an absolute right.

 it is most humbly submitted that in case of Govind vs State of MP, the court stated an
exception in this case where a person voluntarily involves himself into a controversy
or invites one, that person would not fall under the right to privacy

it is most humbly submitted that There is no question of facts or question of

law involved in this case as right to privacy is not a fundamental right.

1.4 Appellants does not have Locus standi.

 It is most humbly submitted that appellant do not have locus standi in the present
case the concise oxford English dictionary,10 th Edn, page 834, defines the term
locus standi as the right or capacity to bring an action or to appear in a court.

 It is submitted that Article 136 itself reads “the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant
special leave to appeal “, Thus Article 136 does not give Right to appeal to any person. It just
confers a discretionary power upon this Hon’ble Court to entertain an appeal by way of special
leave, and that too in exceptional circumstances.

 It is humbly submitted that as held in case of Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheb v. State of
Uttar Pradesh18 that “Re-appreciation of facts is permissible only if an error of law or
procedure and conclusions arrive at are perverse” and in this case, there is no error of law or
procedure neither the conclusions arrived are perverse, this there is no need of re-appreciation
of facts by Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Rajagopal vs. state of T.N

Govind vs State of MP
Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheb v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2006 SC 951.
[16]
Memorial on behalf of Respondents
 IV JUSTICE MURTAZA HUSAIN MEMORIAL INTER COLLEGIATE MOOTCOURT
COMPETITION, 2017

 In case of Subedar v. State of U.P.19 it was held that-

The Hon’ble Supreme Court does not interfere with the concurrent finding of the fact
unless it is established
(1) That the finding is based on no grounds, or
(2) That the finding is perverse, or
(3) That the finding is based on built or inadmissible grounds, or
(4) Some vital piece of facts which would tilt the balance in favour of convict has
been overlooked, disregarded or wrongly disregarded.
It is humbly submitted that the present case does not fulfils any of the conditions mentioned in the
above case.

 In the landmark case of Mathai @ JobyVs.George and Anr 1 . While dealing with
Categories of cases which should be entertained under article 136 of the Constitution, this
court held that-
“Article 136 cannot be read as conferring a right on anyone to prefer an appeal to this
Court; it only confers a right on a party to file an application seeking leave to appeal
and a discretion on the Court to grant or not to grant such leave in its wisdom. When no
law confers a statutory right to appeal on a party, Article 136 cannot be called in aid to
spell out such a right. The power under Article 136 is an extraordinary power to be
exercised in rare and exceptional cases and on well-known principles. ”As no such
special and exceptional circumstances exist that substantial and grave injustice has been
done, thus it is humbly submitted that appellants lack locus standi in the present
case.

Thus, it is most humbly submitted that in this case appellant does not have locus
standi in this present case

Subedar v. State of U.P.

Mathai @ Joby Vs. George and Anr
[17]
Memorial on behalf of Respondents
IV JUSTICE MURTAZA HUSAIN MEMORIAL INTER COLLEGIATE MOOTCOURT
COMPETITION, 2017

1.5 This Hon’ble court does not have jurisdiction to hear the present appeal.

 
Art. 136 of Constitution Of Mandia – Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court
Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion,
grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence
or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory
of Mandia.

 It is most humbly submitted that the hon’ble supreme court does not have
jurisdiction to hear this present appeal, as art.136 says that supreme court
may entertain any appeal on its discretion.

 It is most humbly submitted that as mentioned in the art.50 of Indian

constitution, separation of judiciary from executive. And this pehchaan
act 2014 is a executive law and hon’ble court does not have jurisdiction
to hear the present a court does not have jurisdiction to hear the
present appeal.

 In case of ekta shakti case held that court will not interfere in policy
matters.

 It is most humbly submitted that this policy of pehchaan act 2014, is

enacted for the welfare of public and there must be mutual cooperation
between three main organs (Executive, Legislature and Judiciary) so court
have to cooperate with executive and not to interfere in policy matter

Thus, it is most humbly submitted that hon’ble court does not have
jurisdiction to hear the present a court does not have jurisdiction to hear
the present appeal.

[18]
Memorial on behalf of Respondents
IV JUSTICE MURTAZA HUSAIN MEMORIAL INTER COLLEGIATE MOOTCOURT
COMPETITION, 2017
2. THE PEHCHAAN ACT 2014 ENACTED BY GOVERNMENT OF MANDIA
IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID.

 It is humbly submitted that the Constitutionality of every enactment

made
by legislature is presumed

 It is most humbly submitted that the there is no violation of any

fundamental right as mentioned in above contexts which clearly shows
that we can said that there must be a right which can be violated

 Hon’ble Supreme court in number of cases such as Shri Ram

Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar47 has established
that –
(a) that a law may be constitutional even though it relates to a single
individual if, on account of some special circumstances or reasons applicable
to him and not applicable to others, that single individual may be treated as a
class by himself; (b) That there is always a presumption in favor of the
constitutionality of an enactment and the burden is upon him who attacks
it to show that there has been a clear transgression of the constitutional
principles;
(c) that is must be presumed that the legislature understands and
correctly appreciates the need of its own people, that its laws are directed
to problems made manifest by experience and that its discriminations are
based on adequate grounds;48 (d) that the legislature is free to recognize
degrees of harm and may confine its restrictions to those cases where the need
is deemed to be the clearest;
(f.) that good faith and knowledge of the existing conditions on the part of a legislature are
to be presumed49, ‖

It is most humbly submitted that there must an existing law which in favour of a
public welfare so its constitutionality is presumed as the pehchaan act 2014 is a
Constitutionally Valid

Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar: AIR 1958 SC 538
[19]
Memorial on behalf of Respondents
IV JUSTICE MURTAZA HUSAIN MEMORIAL INTER COLLEGIATE MOOTCOURT
COMPETITION, 2017

2.1 The provisions of Pehchaan act 2014 does not violates any fundamental

right guaranteed under article 21 and 14 of Mandia Constitution.

Art. 21- “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to a
procedure established by law.”

Art.14- The state not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the
Laws within, The territory of India.

 It is most humbly submitted that the provisions of The Pehchaan Act

2014 do not violate The Fundamental rights including right to privacy
and right to equality.

2.1.1 The right to life under article 21 does not includes right to privacy

 Art. 21- “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to
procedure established by law.”

 It is most humbly submitted that the respondent argued in high court

that there is no right to privacy provided in any provision of the
constitution of Mandia
 it is most humbly submitted that the right to privacy is not a constitutional right
this statement is learned from the past judgements of hon’ble courts.

 it is most humbly submitted that in case of Rajagopal vs. state of T.N. the court
stated an exception in this case where a person voluntarily involves himself into a
controversy or invites one, that person would not fall under the right to privacy.

 it is most humbly submitted that right to privacy is not an absolute right.

 it is most humbly submitted that in case of Govind vs State of MP, despite agreeing
that right to privacy is the emanation of art.19 and 21 of the constitution, the top
court held that r ight to privacy cannot be made an absolute right.
Rajagopal vs. state of T.N
Govind vs State of MP
[20]
Memorial on behalf of Respondents
IV JUSTICE MURTAZA HUSAIN MEMORIAL INTER COLLEGIATE MOOTCOURT
COMPETITION, 2017

Thus, it is most humbly submitted that according to above judgements and other
legal scenario shows that right to privacy is not a fundamental right

2.1.2 The pehchaan act 2014 does not violates the right to privacy.
 It is most humbly submitted that the pehchaan act does not violate right to
life including right to privacy as this act enacted for the welfare of public.
 It is most humbly submitted that as mentioned in Art. 21- “No person shall be
deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

 The pehchaan act 2014 have procedure established by law.

 That, In Gopalan’s case the majority held that the expression procedure established by
law must mean procedure prescribed by the law of the state.

 But in menka Gandhi case the supreme court has overruled the A.K Gopalan’s case and
has held that the mere prescription of some kind of procedure is not enough to comply
with the mandate of art.21. the procedure prescribed by law must be fair, just and
reasonable not fanciful, oppressive or arbitrary.

 It is most humbly submitted that the pehchaan act 2014 is a valid law, and this is an
act made by legislature and it constitute the fair and reasonable procedure. And for the
implementation of this law there is a valid procedure established by law as there is no
violation of right to privacy.

The pehchaan act 2014 enacted for public welfare and public security
 That the government of Mandia formulated a policy named ‘Pehchaan’ for profiling of its
citizens and to provide them a card called Pehchaan. The Pehchaan was meant to identify
citizens for various benefits given by the government. It was also meant to save duplicity of
identities. One of the objectives of Pehchaan was to identify illegal immigrants in the
country and to deport them to their respective countries. The main aim of this policy was to
check the leakage in government schemes and to prevent corruption happening in PDS and
other subsidy providing schemes of the government. Basically, the philosophy behind this
policy is ‘Zero Tolerance for Corruption’.

A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1953 SC 27.

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 594;
Point 1 of moot proposition [ 21]
Memorial on behalf of Respondents
IV JUSTICE MURTAZA HUSAIN MEMORIAL INTER COLLEGIATE MOOTCOURT
COMPETITION, 2017

 It is most humbly submitted that the present evolutionary change in cyber world by JIO and
people in bulk purchased jio sim with attaching their aadhaar card and gave wilfully their
personal details to this private entities, but Information demanded under this act is also a
basic details of an individual and as Satish dhankar said that these demand of this
information is violation of right to privacy but these individuals providing their basic details
to the private entities but they hesitate to give their basic details to the government entity
That the government made their law for benefitory of peoples as there is no violation of right
privacy.

 That the Respondent also promised during the proceedings that it will soon bring a
substantive law for the protection of data.

 It is humbly submitted that the pehchaan act 2014 does not violate right to privacy but in
arguendo if we assume the claimed of Satish dhankar to be true then also there is no
violation of right to privacy done as right to privacy is not a fundamental right

Thus, it is most humbly submitted that this pehchaan act2014 does not violate
right to life including right to privacy

[22]
Memorial on behalf of Respondents
 IV JUSTICE MURTAZA HUSAIN MEMORIAL INTER COLLEGIATE MOOTCOURT
COMPETITION, 2017

2.1.3 There is not any violation of article 14 guaranteed under Mandia Constitution

 Art.14- The state not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the
laws within the territory of India.

 Test of Reasonable Classification- While Article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid
reasonable classification of person, objects and transactions by the legislature for the purpose
of achieving ends but classification must not be arbitrary, artificial or evasive.” It must always
rest upon some real and substantial distinction bearing a just reasonable relation to the object
sought to be achieved by the legislature.
 the Pehchaan Act, 2014 is a reasonable law
 It is most humbly submitted that the pehchaan act 2014 is reasonable law as there is a good
nexus between the object and procedure.
 That the government of Mandia formulated a policy named ‘Pehchaan’ for profiling of its
citizens and to provide them a card called Pehchaan. The Pehchaan was meant to identify
citizens for various benefits given by the government. It was also meant to save duplicity of
identities. One of the objectives of Pehchaan was to identify illegal immigrants in the country
and to deport them to their respective countries. The main aim of this policy was to check the
leakage in government schemes and to prevent corruption happening in PDS and other
subsidy providing schemes of the government. Basically, the philosophy behind this policy is
‘Zero Tolerance for Corruption’.
 That the duplicity of election cards will also be checked through Pehchaan Cards- which are based on
latest cyber technology. Tax collection of the government will also increase with the linking of
Pehchaan cards with PAN and bank accounts. These would be the future initiatives of the government.
The policy document of the government clearly indicated all the above stated objectives.

 That as per government notification issued on 12th October 2009, Pehchaan policy is also aimed at
eliminating all forms of terrorism by finishing off sleeping modules and local support base of terrorists
in the country. Terror finance will be curbed through Pehchaan and Hawala transactions and foreign
contributions to suspect NGOs can be checked by making payments, salaries and other financial
transactions online and linking them with Pehchaan system.

 That Pehchaan cards will be provided free of cost to the citizens and a network of cyber cells
will be established throughout the country to facilitate the people to apply for the Pehchaan
cards.
 In the monsoon session of the Parliament of Mandia on 11th August 2014, the government of
Mandia enacted a law called the Pehchaan Act, 2014 making mandatory the Pehchaan cards
for all schemes (benefit and non-benefit both). This law also provided a statutory basis to the
National Unique Identification Authority. The Act of 2014 also has a whole chapter on data
protection and penalties and punishments for data leakage

 Information related to religion of a person is basic information

It is most humbly submitted that India is a multicultural country and information regarding religion of a
person is a basic information which was disclosed by individuals by wilfully for taking various benefits
 In scholarship form
 In job forms
 In college forms
 in reservation forms

Page number 77 of constitutional law of India, Dr. J.N. Pandey

Point number 1,2,3,4 and 12 of moot proposition [23]
Memorial on behalf of Respondents
IV JUSTICE MURTAZA HUSAIN MEMORIAL INTER COLLEGIATE MOOTCOURT
COMPETITION, 2017

 Information related to infertility of a person is basic information

It is most humbly submitted that this information is a basic information as it will be disclosed by citizens
wilfully in taking various legal aids which are provided by the government,

It is most humbly submitted that this information has a good nexus from this act which shows
this pehchaan act is a reasonable law and this act does not violate art 14

THUS, IT IS MOST HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT THE PEHCHAAN ACT 2014

ENACTED BY GOVERNMENT OF MANDIA IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID.

[24]
Memorial on behalf of Respondents
IV JUSTICE MURTAZA HUSAIN MEMORIAL INTER COLLEGIATE MOOTCOURT
COMPETITION, 2017

[25]
Memorial on behalf of Respondents
IV JUSTICE MURTAZA HUSAIN MEMORIAL INTER COLLEGIATE MOOTCOURT
COMPETITION, 2017

[26]
Memorial on behalf of Respondents
IV JUSTICE MURTAZA HUSAIN MEMORIAL INTER COLLEGIATE MOOTCOURT
COMPETITION, 2017

[27]
Memorial on behalf of Respondents
IV JUSTICE MURTAZA HUSAIN MEMORIAL INTER COLLEGIATE MOOTCOURT
COMPETITION, 2017

[28]
Memorial on behalf of Respondents
IV JUSTICE MURTAZA HUSAIN MEMORIAL INTER COLLEGIATE MOOTCOURT
COMPETITION, 2017

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the facts used, issues raised, arguments advanced and the authorities
cited, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to
adjudge and declare that:

1. The Special Leave Petition filed by the appellants Satish dhankar under Art. 136 of
constitution of Mandia is not maintainable in Hon’ble Supreme Court of Mandia.

2. The right to life under article 21 does not includes right to privacy.

3. The provisions of Pehchaan act 2014 does not violates fundamental rights guaranteed
under article 21 and 14 of Indian Constitution.

4. The pehchaan act 2014 enacted by government of Mandia is constitutionally valid.

According to what is just and good, it is an appeal of the counsel to Hon’ble Court to adjudge the
above prayers, and grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant and is
deemed fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

All of which respectfully submitted

For the act of Kindness, the Respondent Shall Duty Bound Forever

All of which is most humbly prayed

Counsels for the Respondents

[29]
Memorial on behalf of Respondents