UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES, PANJAB UNIVERSITY

INTRA DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

BEFORE

THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION

In the matter of

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS ……………………………………………….PETITIONER

V.

EXCELLENT FOODS LIMITED ……………………………………………………...RESPONDENTS

BEFORE SUBMISSION TO

1|Page

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

[A] WHETHER OR NOT ARREST OF SEQUOIA AMOUNTS TO
ILLEGAL DETENTION?
Being a member of any organization although banned does not means the person is criminal. It is
humbly submitted before this hon'ble court that detention of Sequoia is not valid and contrary to
the legal provisions of Praakrit.

[A.1] MEANING OF ILLEGAL DETENTION

Detention is the act of retaining a person or property. Illegal detention is the unjustifiable
imprisonment or the unlawful deprivation of liberty of a person by way of arrest for a wrongful
cause or suspicion and the continued restriction of personal freedom by retaining such person in
custody.

[A.2] MERE MEMBERSHIP OF BANNED ORGANIZATION WILL NOT MAKE A

PERSON A CRIMINAL
Sequoia was arrested in Sauramashtha in September 2012 merely on allegations of being a
member of the banned Communist Party of Praakrit. It is to be pointed out before this hon’ble
court that Sequoia was a member of banned organization i.e Communist Party of Praakrit(CPP)
and has attended couple of meetings but was not involved in the incidents of 2012 for which he
has now been arrested on ground of mere allegations. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
the case of Arup Bhuyan1 held that mere membership of banned organization will not make a
person a criminal unless he resorts to violence or incites people to violence. Since Sequoia is just
supporting the rights of Maoists and has no criminal record. There is no evidence whatsoever
that he incited people to violence nor did he himself commit violence against anybody. The
court also stated that : “In our opinion, Section 3(5) cannot be read literally otherwise it will
violate Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. It has to be read in the light of our observations
made above. Hence, mere membership of a banned organisation will not make a person a
criminal unless he resorts to violence or incites people to violence or creates public disorder by
violence or incitement to violence.” The court held that since the PFI2 was not banned, the
accused could not be penalized for belonging to it. The Court further observed that even if they
were to presume that PFI is an illegal organization, they were ‘yet to consider whether all
members of the organization can be automatically held to be guilty’. The Court also held that

1
2011 (3) SCC 377
2
People’s Front of India

2|Page
there was no prima facie proof that the accused was involved in the crime and had thus not
violated the proviso to section 43D(5) of the UAPA on bail. In Indra Das v. State of Assam3,
there is no evidence against the appellant except the confessional statement which was
subsequently retracted by applent . also the confessional statement was not corroborated by any
other evidence. In this case the hon’blesupreme court held that :

“In Arup Bhuyan case we have stated that mere membership of a banned organisation cannot
incriminate a person unless he is proved to have resorted to acts of violence or incited people to
imminent violence, or does an act intended to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by
resort to imminent violence. In the present case, even assuming that the appellant was a member
of ULFA which is a banned organisation, there is no evidence to show that he did acts of the
nature abovementioned. Thus, even if he was a member of ULFA it has not been proved that he
was an active member and not merely a passive member. Hence the decision in Arup Bhuyan
case squarely applies in this case.”

In the given case, both actus reus and mens rea have not been proved by the state. In this case
merely on grounds of allegations by police , Sequoia was booked in several cases in regard to the
attack by Naxals on Security Force camp . It has been alleged by police that he was present in
the minutes of the meetings by Sequoia but there is substantial lack of evidence in that regard.
Police merely on the grounds of suspicion arrested Sequoia and charged him under charges of
murder, rioting and sec 18, 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,1967.

[A.3] PROCEDURE OF ARREST

It is humbly submitted that Sequoia was arrested in sauramashtha in September 2012 on
allegations of being a banned Communist Party of Praakrit(CPP). But a Charge sheet is yet to be
filed against Sequoia in this case (STPS) till date. So we can clearly see that the police has
flouted the procedure of arresting him.

In Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh4,the apex court has issued directions regarding
arrest. The court has emphasized that a police officer may have the power of arrest without
justification for exercising the power is quite another matter. The arrest can cause incalculable
harm to a person’s reputation and self-esteem. Arrest should be made not merely on suspicion

3
2011 (3) SCC 380
4
1994 (4) SCC 260

3|Page
but only after a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness
and bonafides of the complaint and a reasonable belief as to the person’s complicity and even as
to the need to effect arrest.

The point to be noted is that the certain rights of an arrested person i.e.in the present case, of
Sequoia, are ignored i.e he has right that a relative /friend of his be informed about his arrest and
place of his detention ;he has right to consult the lawyer privately.

In D.K Basu v/s State of West Bengal5, the Court has laid down detailed guidelines to be
followed by the6 police at the time of arrest and detention. There are basically 11 guidelines
which specify the procedure or method at the time of arrest. Among those guidelines the state of
Praakrit has completely ignored that the arrestee should be subjected to medical
examination by a trained doctor every 48 hours during his detention in custody by a doctor
on the panel of approved doctors appointed by Director, health Services of the concerned state or
union territory. Director, Health Services should prepare such a penal for all tehsils and districts
as well.

[A.3] TREATMENT OF UNDER-TRIAL POLITICAL PRISONER

It is humbly submitted that Septic tank principle is continued as the basis for his secluded and
segregated treatment. Not only is he kept separate, but he is not allowed to meet relatives, no
interviews and basic necessities of life are also denied to him. This is clear violation of Universal
Declaration Of Human Rights (UDHR) and International Covenant of Civil And Political Rights.

[A.4] ADVOCACY AND INCITEMENT

It is humbly submitted Sequoia being an intellectual person was exercising his advocacy skills
for the protection of rights of Maoists. The point to be noted here is that there’s a difference
between advocacy of the rights of Maoists and the advocacy for commission of an act of
violence. There is no evidence whatsoever that he incited or even advocated Maoists people to
commit an act of violence rather his research papers clearly shows his work for just the
protection of rights of Maoists.

5
[(1997) 1 SCC 416; AIR 1997 SC 610

4|Page
Section 18. Punishment for Conspiracy:

“Whoever conspires or attempts to commit, or advocates, abets, advises or incites directs or

knowingly facilitates the commission of a terrorist act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for
a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to Imprisonment for Life,
and shall also be liable to fine.”

In State of Kerela v Raneef7, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India have respectfully agreed with
the opinion of the US Supreme Court in Elfbrandt v. Russell816 L Ed 2d 321 US Douglas, J. of
speaking for the majority observed:

“Those who join an organization but do not share its unlawful purpose and who do not
participate in its unlawful activities surely pose no threat, either as citizens or as public
employees. … A law which applies to membership without the ‘specific intent’ to further the
illegal aims of the organization infringes unnecessarily on protected freedoms. It rests on the
doctrine of ‘guilt by association’ which has no place here.”

[A.5] PASSIVE MEMBER DIFFERENT FROM AN ACTIVE MEMBER

Section 20 of Unlawful Activities And Prevention Act talks about the punishment for being a
member of terrorist organization or gang. Section 20 has been enacted as a reasonable restriction
on the freedoms contemplated under article 19 .Accordingly the concept of ‘membership’ is to
be interpreted in the light of these freedoms.

Observed from this point of view the membership to a terrorist gang or organization cannot be
a passive membership. It has to be treated as an active membership which results in
participation in the activities of terrorist gang or organization which are performed to carry out
the aims and objectives of terrorist gang or organization by means of violence or other unlawful
means.

It is very clear from the observation made by the Supreme Court that if Section 20 were to be
interpreted in that manner, it would at once be considered as violative of Article 19 and
7
2011 (1) SCC 784
8
16 L Ed 2d 321

5|Page
would be struck down as ultra vires. In fact, judges of the Supreme Court of India have
interpreted the concept of membership as an active membership to save the relevant provision
from eng declared as unconstitutional. It becomes very clear that Sequoia was passive member
not an active member.

In Ms. Jyoti Babasaheb Chorge v State of Maharashtra9, the High Court stated that it seemed
that applicants had come in contact with members of the said organization, and were perhaps
learning about the philosophy at ideology of the said organization. Therefore, simply on the
basis of this association cannot be prima facie held as offenders. It is impossible to hold that
all such persons a to be treated as members of a terrorist organization, or that they are liable to be
punish for having some faith in such philosophy, or for having sympathy for those propagate
such philosophy. It is in this context, that the concept of active members and passive
membership has been judicially evolved.

In M. Londhoni Devi v. National Investigation Agency10, a distinction was sought to be made

between a “banned organisation” and a “terrorist organization. Chief Justice Aladan B. lokur (as
he then was) speaking for the Court stated that: “it cannot be forgotten that Parliament has
provided a huge margin in the quantum of punishment for membership of a terrorist
organization. If mere membership of a terrorist organisation is expected to invite serious penal
consequences, the Legislature would not have given such a wide discretion to the Trial Judge in
the matter of sentencing. Therefore the mere allegation of membership of a terrorist organisation
cannot ipso r the severest penalty under the statute. The level of involvement in the activities of
such banned activities to be noted before any kind of decision is reached .

[A.6] ARTICLE 21 AND PRISONER’S RIGHTS

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India11, it has been ruled that a prisoner, be he a convict, under-
trial or a detenu, does not cease to be a human being. Even when lodged in the jail, he continues
to enjoy all his fundamental rights including the right to life. In this context, it may, therefore, be
stated that the Supreme Court while interpreting Article 21, has laid down a new Constitutional
and Prison Jurisprudence.

9
2013 BOM (CR1) 186, Bombay High Court
10
2011 SCC GAU 278
11
1978 AIR 597

6|Page
[A.7] INTERNATIONAL NORMS AND PRINCIPLES IN REGARD TO PRISONER’S
RIGHT
It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that state of Praakrit is not following the
international norms and principles like Universal Declaration Of Human Rights(UDHR) And
International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights and various other instruments. The state Of
Praakrit is Signatory to International Norms and principles. The true test of “good governance” is
the degree to which it delivers on the promise of civil, cultural, economic, political and social
rights. Thus, the key benchmark for judging effective governance is whether or not public
institutions are effectively guaranteeing rights such as right to health, housing, food, education,
and justice, besides ensuring effective safety in the country. There are certain rights which are to
be followed by Praakrit in regard to prisoners rights;

International human rights law is binding on all States and their agents, including prison
officials. All prisoners shall be offered a proper medical examination and treatment as soon as
possible after admission.12 All prisoners shall be provided with wholesome and adequate food at
the usual hours and with drinking water available whenever needed. 13 Decisions about a
prisoner’s health should be taken only on medical grounds by medically qualified people.14 The
medical officer has an important responsibility to ensure that proper health standards are met. He
or she can do this by regularly inspecting and advising the director of the prison on the suitability
of food, water, hygiene, cleanliness, sanitation, heating, lighting, ventilation, clothing, bedding
and opportunities for exercise.15 Every prison should have proper health facilities and medical
staff to provide for a range of health needs, including dental and psychiatric care.16

If the state of Praakrit is signatory to international conventions then it is the duty of the state to
follow it but the state of Praakrit is completely in violation of international norms and
international principles and conventions. Sequoia has not been provided any right in regard to
prisioners rights and he was been segrated and secluded by state of Praakrit in violation of theses
norms.

12
Principles on Detention or Imprisonment, principle 24; Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners
13
Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners ,rule20
14
Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners ,rule20
15
Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners ,rule26
16
Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners ,rule 22(1) and (2)

7|Page
[A.8] DUBIOUS CHARACTER OF NIA

“It is to be remembered that in 2015 that Rohini Salian, the senior public prosecutor in Malegaon
case filed an affidavit stating that the NIA approached her asking to go soft on the case. She was
subsequently removed from the position presumably for refusing to cooperate. Colonel Shrikanth
Purohith, one of the prime accused in the case recently got bail from the jail because the NIA
could not charge sheet him even after 9 years of his arrest. Reports say that the fate of Samjhauta
Express blast case is going in the same direction.

“NIA’s dubious reports were crucial when peaceful and lawful Muslim initiatives like Muslim
Research Foundation was banned and Islamic scholars like Zakir Naik were demonized. It urged
the central government to end misuse of the NIA as a political weapon and called upon on all
democratic forces and people’s organisations to raise voice against such grave violations.

8|Page
[B] WHETHER OR NOT THE STATE HAS FLOATED THE NORMS FOR
ARRESTING A JUDICIAL OFFICER?
The arrest of Justice Amar Shergill was contrary to the norms of arrest of arresting a judicial
officer. It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that the arrest of Justice Amar Shergill is
contrary to the procedural laws of arrest.

[B.1] JUDICIAL OFFICER DEFINED

According to black law dictionary, judicial officer is the officer of the court who mades a
decision, usually refers to lesser judges such as a justice of the peace or a magistrate judge. 17 It is
humbly requested before the honourable court that Justice Amar Shergill is 67 year old human
right activist and always worked for the rights of people of Praakrit. Generally, “A human rights
activist is one who believes and works either as an individual or as a member of an organization
in order to promote and campaign for the basic rights and freedoms that humans are entitled to”.

[B.2] FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION

Freedom of Speech and Expression has held to be basic and indivisible for a democratic polity18,
the citizens most cherished and sacred right, the ‘prized priviledge’. It is said to be a cornerstone
of the functioning of the democracy19 It is essential to the rule of the law and the liberty of the
citizens20 In the case of S. Rangarajan v P. Jagjiva21, it was held by the court that the
democratic form of government, itself demand its citizen active and intelligent participation in
the affairs of the community. The public discussion with the people’s participation is a basic
feature and a rational process of democracy, which distinguishes it from all other forms of
government.

It is humbly requested before the court that Justice Amar Shergill being the citizen of Praakrit he
also expressed by virtue of his right to freedom of speech and expression which is given in the
article 19 of the Constitution.22

17
Black Law Dictionary,2nd Edition
18
this right is recognised internationally as a HUMAN RIGHT under the UNiversal Declaration of Human Rights
,1948 as also under the International Covenant on civil and Political rights. The right is identical with the 1st
amendment of the US constitution, 1791
19
union of india v motion picture association, AIR 1999 SC 2334
20
DC Saxena, AIR 1996 SC 2481
21
1989 (2) SCC 574
22
Section 69 of the Information Technology Act, 2000

9|Page
It is therefore submitted before the honorable court that, in our case the Justice Amar Shergill
being human rights activist has made his views or posted his views on social media on the
activities which are going in the city of Praakrit which has led to release the Sequoia because he
just to tended to defame the Government but wanted that public should know that the treatment
in the prisons of the political prisoners is not fair.

[B.3] ARREST OF THE JUDICIAL OFFICERS

In the case of Delhi Judicial Service Association, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi vs State of Gujarat
and others23, it was held that: (a) A judicial officer is to be arrested for some offence, it should
be done under intimation to the District Judge or the High Court as the case may be. (b) If facts
and circumstances necessitate the immediate arrest of a judicial officer of the subordinate
judiciary, a technical or formal arrest may be effected. (c) The fact of such arrest should be
immediately communicated.to the District and Sessions Judge of the concerned District and the
Chief Justice of the High Court. (d) The Judicial Officer so arrested shall not be taken to a police
station, without the prior order or directions of the District & Sessions Judge of the concerned
District, if available. (e) Immediate facilities shall be provided to the Judicial Officer for
communication with his family members, legal advisors and Judicial Officers, including the
District & Sessions Judge. (f) No statement of a Judicial Officer who is under arrest be recorded
nor any panchnama be drawn up nor any medical test be conducted except in the presence of the
Legal Advisor of the Judicial Officer concerned or another Judicial Officer of equal or higher
rank, if available. It was further held that these guidelines are not exhaustive but are the
minimum safeguards to be observed in case of arrest of a Judicial Officer. These should be
implemented by the State Governments as well as by the High Courts. No judicial officer should
visit a Police Station on his own except in connection with his official and judicial duties and
functions, and this also with prior intimation to the District and Sessions Judge.

It is humbly submitted before the court that the Justice Amar Shergill was arrested for having
links with Sequoia. An FIR was registered against him under the section of 153A and 153B and
the police officer flouted the norms which are stated in the above case and the put him behind
the bar.

23
1991 AIR 2176

10 | P a g e
ARRESTS OF JUDICIAL OFFICER UNDER SECTION 153A AND 153B OF INDIAN
PENAL CODE

The above stated section seeks to provide that that the Justice Amar Shergill was trying to make
disharmony in the society but it is humbly submitted before the honourable court that Justice was
only trying to give its views or was supporting Seqiua that the condition of the political prisoners
was not good as they were not given the equal treatment as like of other prisoners. So the charges
under which he was arrested are flouting the norms.The essential ingredient of section 153A
includes promotion or attempts to promote disharmony or feeling of enmity ,hatred or ill-will.

In section 153A it basically provides about the use of violence and the criminal force having
sufficient mens rea about this but in the given case such type of happening did not take place. So
the section 153A for which the judicial officer is charged is violative. This Court has held in
Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab 1995 3 SCC 214 that mens rea is a necessary ingredient for the
offence under Section 153-A. Mens rea is an equally necessary postulate for the offence under
Section 505(2) also as could be discerned from the words “with intent to create or promote or
which is likely to create or promote” as used in that sub-section.

In section 153B it provides, any words spoken or written makes or publishes any imputation that
any class of persons cannot, by reason of their being members of any religious, racial, language
or regional group or caste or community, bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of
India as by law established or uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India.

So it is humbly submitted before the court that in this case Justice Amar Shergill did use the
words but not being the member of any group having no mens rea which try to disturb the
sovereignty and intergrity of the nation.

CONTEMPT OF THE COURT

The right of freedom of speech and expression does not entitle a person to commit the contempt
of court24. It cannot be held as law that in view of the constitutional protection of the freedom of
speech and expression , no one can be proceeded with for the contempt of court on the allegation

24
C.K Daphtary v O.P Gupta, AIR 1971 SC 1132

11 | P a g e
of scandalising the authority of any court . The law relating to the content of the courts thus
imposes reasonable restrictions on the freedom and id within the ambit of article 19[2].

In the case of Re: DC Saxena25, the SC held that the freedom of speech and expression would
be subjected to Article 19[2], 129, and 215. Though the courts do not like assume the posture
that they are above criticism and that their functioning needs to improvement.

It is humbly submitted before the court that the contempt notice that is served to the Justice
Amar Shergill is total against the law because he has just expressing the views via a Facebook
post and thus exercising his right to speech and expression. So basically contempt by the SC on
the basis of freedom of speech expression is totally violative of the law.

QUASHING OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORT

An FIR can be quashed in High court under section 482 crpc. Usually the grounds for quashing
the fir are as follows: Charge sheet is not produced even after 1–2 years of the fir being
registered

It is humbly requested before the court the FIR was registered against him by the police under
153 A and 153 B flouted the norms as stated earlier and the grounds which are mentioned are in
the favour of the Justice so High Court quashed the FIR under section 482 of CRPC and such
powers are the inherent powers go the High Court.

RIGHT TO FORGOTTEN

In Sri Vasunathan vs The Registrar26, the Karnataka HC in it’s judgement and order has dealt
with the “right to be forgotten” on the internet in India. This post contains a background and
analysis of the case.The facts of the case are;

a petition was filed in the criminal case seeking quashing of the proceedings under section 482
of the CRPC. In the Sec. 482 petition the daughter of the petitioner was listed as Respondent №2
and her name and address were mentioned as required procedurally. The proceedings, as
requested were quashed thereafter.

25
AIR 1996 SC 2481
26
2017 SCC KAR 424

12 | P a g e
It was the apprehension of the daughter of the petitioner that if a name-wise search on Yahoo or
Google were to be conducted, the order would reflect in the results and the same would affect her
relationship with her husband and would also result in degradation of her image in society.

The High Court made it clear that the website of the High Court would still display the certified
copy and the same would not be subject to any modification and thus, the name would be
reflected in the order.

The court further stated that this approach was in line with the Western countries where “Right to
be forgotten” was recognised especially concerning sensitive issues such as rape, modesty,
reputation etc. Though this is not indicated substantially by way of reasoning, this is presumed
on the basis of statutory protections which are present in law.

JUDGE MADE LAWS

In Keshavanada Bharti v State of Kerela (1973) which protected the Constitution & its basic
features & tenets against any possibility of encroachment by the Legislature. Constitution is not
in a State of being, but becoming, a prophetic comment made by S.N. Dwivedi J. in the same
case. Maneka Gandhi27 (1978), where the meaning of life & liberty was expanded & subjected
to not merely any procedure by law, but by the procedure established by law which means the
due process of law which should be just, fair, reasonable & not arbitrary. S.P. Gupta28 (1982),
where the rule of locus standi was stretched & two new standings were propounded viz., the
Representative Standing & the Citizens Standing. Rudul Shah29 (1983), where the S.C. for the
first time awarded the compensation for violation of rights guaranteed under Part III. Vishakha’s
case30 (1997), where guidelines are made by the Supreme Court for protection of working
women against sexual harassment at work places. Vineet Narain’s case31 (1998), where after the
discovery of “the Jain Diaries”, the sluggish investigations by the CBI & the revenue authorities
appeared to be intended to protect the political Executive in power & to scuttle its proper
outcome, the Supreme Court under the combined reading of Arts. 32 & 142 innovated the
procedure of “continuing mandamus” to bring the investigations on their proper track & to

27
1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR 2762
28
1981 SUPP SCC 87
29
1983 (4) SCC 141
30
1997 (6) SCC 241
31
1998 (1) SCC 226

13 | P a g e
proceed expeditiously, so as to bring the guilty to book. Sakshi’s Case32 (1999), Supreme Court
gave directions to prevent sexual abuse of children. Prakash Badal’s Case33 (2006), where
Supreme Court gave the directions to Centre & State Govts.’ for reforms in police. In Coalgate
Scam Case (2012) the Supreme Court canceled the allotment of 194 coal blocks on grounds of
arbitrariness, illegality, unconstitutionality and public interest. Abhay Singh (2013), Supreme
Court gave directions on misuse of red-beacons. All of these are the classic examples of the
judicial law making. Have the Courts done anything wrong by legislating for the welfare of the
society keeping in mind the ethos of the constitution where there was no legislation put in place
by the legislatures competent to legislate. Answer is No, they haven’t done anything wrong.

32
1999 (6) SCC 591
33
2006 (1) SCC (Cri) 1

14 | P a g e
WHETHER OR NOT THE KIKI NEWS CHANNEL HAS A CONSIDERABLE EFFECT IN
PROVIDING FAIR TRIAL TO SEQUOIA?

1. The right of fair trial has not been correctly provided to respondents. It is submitted before
this hon'ble supreme court that Sequoia has not been provided right to fair trial.

1.1 MEANING OF FAIR TRIAL

Articles 10 of the UDHR declares that everyone entitle in full equality to a fair and public
hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his legal rights and
obligation and of any c34riminal charges against him. Articles 14(1) of the international
covenants on civil and political rights provide that all people shall be equal before the court and
tribunals.

The Kiki News Channel being representative of media in this particular case has completely
violated the norms and principles of providing trial to Sequoia .The media can be commended
for starting a trend where the media plays an active role in bringing the accused to hook. The
Kiki News Channel has shown the views of Justice Amar Shergill in the state of Praakrit in such
a way that it is prejudiced in regard to conviction of Sequovia.

It completely overlooks the vital gap between an accused and a convict keeping at stake the
golden principles of ‘presumption of innocence until proven guilty’ and ‘guilt beyond reasonable
doubt’.

Free and fair trial has been said to be the sine qua non of Article 21.Stating that fair trial "is the
very heart of criminal justice, and in a way, an important facet of democratic polity that is
governed by Rule of Law", the Apex Court held its denial as crucifixion of human right.The
Right to fair trial is held to include fair investigation. The Apex Court in

In Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab35,held that though the State had a larger obligation
to maintain law and order, public order and preservation of peace and harmony in the society, at
the same time, a victim of a crime was equally entitled to a fair investigation. The Court said that

35
2009 (1) SCC 441

15 | P a g e
when serious allegations were made against a former Minister of a State, except In cases of
political revenge, amounting to malice, it was for the State to entrust one or the other agency for
the purpose of investigation into the matter, including a central agency which had acquired
specialisation in such cases.

The Apex Court reiterated the observations made in Ram Bali V. State of Uttar Pradesh36, that
this court must ensure that the defective investigation purposely carried out by the Investigating
Officer ,does not affect the credibility of the version of events given by the prosecution.

TRIAL BY MEDIA IS CONTEMPT OF COURT

The Contempt of Court Act defines contempt by identifying it as a civil and criminal. Criminal
contempt has further been divided into three types:. Scandalizing, Prejudicing Trial , Hindering
The Administration Of Justice

The chief justice Gopal Rao Ekkbote of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Y.V.
Hanumantha Rao v. K.R. Pattabhiram and Anr., where in it was observed by the learned judge
that:

“ …… When litigation is pending before a Court, no one shall comment on it in such a way there
is a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the trial of the action, as for instance by influence
on the Judge, the witnesses or by prejudicing mankind in general against a party to the cause.
Even if the person making the comment honestly believes it to be true, still it is a contempt of
Court if he prejudices the truth before it is ascertained in the proceedings. To this general rule of
fair trial one may add a further rule and that is that none shall, by misrepresentation or otherwise,
bring unfair pressure to bear on one of the parties to a cause so as to force him to drop his
complaint or defense. It is always regarded as of the first importance that the law which we have
just stated should be maintained in its full integrity. But in so stating the law we must bear in
mind that there must appear to be 'a real and substantial danger of prejudice'.

In R. v. Gray 37. Contempt by speech or writing may be by scandalizing the Court itself, or by
abusing parties to actions, or by prejudicing mankind in favor of or against a party before the

36
2004 (10) SCC 598
37
[1900} 2 QB

16 | P a g e
cause is heard. It is incumbent upon Courts of justice to preserve their proceedings from being
misrepresented, for prejudicing the minds of the public against persons concerned as parties in
causes before the cause is finally heard has pernicious consequences. Speeches or writings
misrepresenting the proceedings of the Court or prejudicing the public for or against a party or
involving reflections on parties to a proceeding amount to contempt. To make a speech tending
to influence the result of a pending trial, whether civil or criminal is a grave contempt.

The kiki news channel had misused their Freedom of Speech and Expression and has committed
a grave contempt of court making prejudice in regard to detention of Sequoia. The Kiki News
Channel showed the facebook post in such manner that someone who sympathises with Seqovia
is furiously angry and thus amount to contempt of court. The reputation of Seqovia was greatly
harmed by the way the media houses have shown the Facebook Post shown by Kiki News
Channel.

GAG ORDER

Moreover the Kiki News Channel has violated the gag order.The Kiki News Channel does not
have a right to report whatever they please just on the basis of police briefing causing prejudice
to the to the pending trial of the Seqovia. In Sahara Real Estate Corporation and other v.
Security Exchange Board Of India and Another38, the court said in view of the judgment of this
Court in A.K. Gopalan v. Noordeen39 , such statements which could be prohibited temporarily
would include statements in the media which would prejudice the right to a fair trial of a suspect
or accused under Article 21 from the time when the criminal proceedings in a subordinate court
are imminent or where suspect is arrested. This Court has held in Ram Autar Shukla v. Arvind
Shukla40 that the law of contempt is a way to prevent the due process of law from getting
perverted. That, the words “due course of justice” in Section 2 (c) or Section 13 of the 1971 Act
are wide enough and are not limited to a particular judicial proceedings. That, the meaning of the
words “contempt of court” in Article 129 and Article 215 is wider than the definition of
“criminal contempt” in Section 2 (c) of the 1971 Act. If in a given case the appropriate Court
finds infringement of such presumption by excessive prejudicial publicity by the newspapers (in

38
2012 (12) SCC 610
39
[(1969) 2 SCC 734
40
1995 Supp (2) SCC 130

17 | P a g e
general), then under inherent powers, the Courts of Record suo motu or on being approached or
on report being filed before it by subordinate court can under its inherent powers under Article
129 or Article 215 pass orders of postponement of publication for a limited period if the
applicant is able to demonstrate substantial risk of prejudice to the pending trial and provided he
is able to displace the presumption of open Justice and to that extent the burden will be on the
applicant who seeks such postponement of offending publication.

The above discussion shows that in most jurisdictions there is power in the courts to postpone
reporting of judicial proceedings in the interest of administration of justice.

RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN

In Sri Vasunathan vs The Registrar41, the Karnataka HC in it’s judgement and order has dealt
with the “right to be forgotten” on the internet in India. This post contains a background and
analysis of the case.The court said ;

it should be the endeavour of the Registry to ensure that any internet search made in the public
domain ought not to reflect the petitioner’s daughter’s name in the cause-title or the body of the
order of petition Crl.P. No. 1599/2015. There is little reasoning which is contained in the order
for this except a,, “general trend in western countries”.

The court further stated that this approach was in line with the Western countries where “Right to
be forgotten” was recognised especially concerning sensitive issues such as rape, modesty,
reputation etc. Though this is not indicated substantially by way of reasoning, this is presumed
on the basis of statutory protections which are present in law.

The Kiki news channel has wrongly stated that Right To be Forgotten is not there in the state of
Praakrit. As concerned with the cited case law by Karnataka High Court Right to be Forgotten is
recognized in state of Praakrit and Judge made Laws has relevance in Praakritn Laws. Since
there is concept of Right to Be Forgotten so permanent injuction on the TV Show is in
acoordance with the laws and the HighCourt has not erred in Law.

41
2017 SCC KAR 424

18 | P a g e
WHETHER THE STATE OF PRAAKRIT IS FOLLOWING INTERNATIONALLY
RECOGNISED PRINCIPLES ,STANDARDS AND COVENTIONS ?

It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that state of Praakrit is not following the
international norms and principles like Universal Declaration Of Human Rights(UDHR) And
International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights and various other instruments. The state Of
Praakrit is signatory to International Norms and principles. The true test of “good governance” is
the degree to which it delivers on the promise of civil, cultural, economic, political and social
rights. Thus, the key benchmark for judging effective governance is whether or not public
institutions are effectively guaranteeing rights such as right to health, housing, food, education,
and justice, besides ensuring effective safety in the country.\There are certain Rights which are to
be followed by Praakrit in regard to prisoners rights.

International human rights law is binding on all States and their agents, including prison
officials. All prisoners shall be offered a proper medical examination and treatment as soon as
possible after admission. All prisoners shall be provided with wholesome and adequate food at
the usual hours and with drinking water available whenever needed. Decisions about a prisoner’s
health should be taken only on medical grounds by medically qualified people. The medical
officer has an important responsibility to ensure that proper health standards are met. He or she
can do this by regularly inspecting and advising the director of the prison on the suitability of
food, water, hygiene, cleanliness, sanitation, heating, lighting, ventilation, clothing, bedding and
opportunities for exercise.42 Every prison should have proper health facilities and medical staff to
provide for a range of health needs, including dental and psychiatric care. Sick prisoners who
cannot be treated in the prison, such as prisoners with mental illness, should be transferred to a
civilian hospital or to a specialized prison hospital.All cruel, inhuman or degrading punishments
are completely prohibited, including corporal punishment or placing in a dark cell.

If the state of Praakrit is signatory to international conventions that it is tne duty of the state to
follow it but the state of Praakrit is completely in violation of international norms and
international principles and conventions. Sequoia has not been provided any right in regard to

42
Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners ,rule26

19 | P a g e
prisioners rights and he was been segrated and secluded by state of Praakrit in violation of theses
norms.

As stated in the our previous contention that that state following their dangerous ideologies and
have arrested Sequoia and Jutice Amar Shergill , the writ of Habeus Corpus being filed by the
NGO Vasudev Kutumbkum resulted in release of all the activists and the F.I.R was quashed by
the Hon’ble High Court against Justice Amar Shergill.

APPEAL FILED BY THE STATE

The State of Sauramashtha has appealed to Supreme Court. As contended in the earlier
contentions , that the arrest of Seqovia and Justice Amar Shergill is contrary to proper procedure
and the facts of the case.

Between 2011 and 2013, the authorities in Maharashtra arrested six members of Kabir Kala
Manch, a cultural group, under counterterrorism laws, claiming that they were secretly members
of the Communist Party of India (Maoist), a banned organization. The authorities produced no
evidence of such membership, however, and the members dismiss the claim as entirely
unfounded. The Pune-based group of singers, poets, and artists consists largely of Dalit youth
and uses music, poetry, and street plays to raise awareness about issues such as oppression of
Dalits and tribal groups, social inequality, corruption, and Hindu-Muslim relations.43

Those charged with violating the counterterrorism laws are considered “anti-national,” so simply
being charged can have a severe impact on the lives of the accused and their families, even if
they are ultimately judged innocent.

In February 2016, police in Delhi arrested Kanhaiya Kumar, a student union leader at the
Jawaharlal Nehru University, after members of the student wing of the ruling Bharatiya Janata
Party (BJP) accused him of making anti-national speeches during a meeting organized on
campus. The public meeting was held on February 9 to protest the 2013 hanging of
MohammadAfzal Guru, who was convicted for his role in a December 2001 attack on parliament
that killed nine people. Afzal Guru’s execution remains a matter of intense debate in the country.

43
SAGAR TATYARAM GORKHE AND ANR V. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA WITH SACHIN MARUTI MALI @ SAMAR
V. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

20 | P a g e
The Delhi police admitted to the court that Kumar had “not been seen” raising any anti-national
slogans in the video footage available. The Delhi High Court granted him bail in March. Five
more students were booked in the case; two, Umar Khalid and Anirban Bhattacharya, were also
arrested and later released on bail.

However, despite the police’s admission that they had no evidence of anti-national sloganeering
by Kumar, and certainly no evidence of incitement to violence, the government has yet to admit
that the arrests were wrong. Kumar’s arrest thus reveals how divided the country remains over
the meaning of tolerance and the imperative of legal protection of peaceful, if disfavored,
expression.44

In the given case, the state of Praakrit had no evidence that speeches and published work of
Sequovia and Justice Amar Shergill are anti national and they hurt the sentiments of Army.
Since there was no incitement among public was there so no aeest should be there on suspicion
and having links with other terrorist.

The recent actions of the Trinamool Congress (TMC) government in West Bengal, led by the
redoubtable Mamata Banerjee, have been especially nefarious in this regard. West Bengal had
one of the most progressive laws related to political prisoners in India, viz. the West Bengal
Correctional Services Act, 1992, passed by the previous Left Front government, under pressure
from the long-standing movement on political prisoners in the state. Section 24 of this act
recognized the status of political prisoners in state prisons and accorded them some privileges.
The TMC came to power with promises of releasing the political prisoners imprisoned by the
previous regime, which made it garner a large number of votes in the Jangalmahal area from
where many people have been arrested and were languishing in jail, and also made a section of
civil society in West Bengal get on to the TMC bandwagon.

However, once it came to power, it obfuscated on this issue by making a so called review
committee, incorporating some of the members of civil society allied to it, and when the review
committee brought up the issue of recognition of political prisoners by asking political prisoners
to appeal to the courts for such recognition, the TMC government opposed this in the Supreme

44 Kanhiya Kumar v. Jawahar Lal Natioinal University, W.P.(C) 7902/2016

21 | P a g e
Court. And even without waiting for the Supreme Court verdict it went ahead and amended
section 24, making it illegal for members of banned organizations, or someone who has not been
arrested from a “legal struggle” to have the status and rights of political prisoners. In effect, the
TMC government’s actions nullified the only law in India that recognized the formal status of
political prisoners. However, in certain states such as Andhra Pradesh which have a long history
of radical Left movements, so-called “Naxalite prisoners”, enjoy some de facto rights as political
prisoners, although without any formal recognition.

It is humbly submitted that together with charging people under the special laws such as UAPA,
the police routinely charges political prisoners with multiple criminal cases related to murder,
attempt to murder, rioting, conspiracy and use of arms and explosives etc. so that they can be
kept imprisoned for prolonged times and obtaining bail becomes very difficult. Also, this helps
in creating a negative attitude in the minds of the general populace towards political prisoners
and political movements. In nearly all cases, these charges are finally found to be false, and most
of the political prisoners get acquitted of these charges after a lengthy legal process which takes
years during which they remain imprisoned.

The PIL filed by Kashi Garoor is maintainable as regards to treat all political prisoners in
accordance with the internationally recognized principles , standards and conventions.As stated
in the our previous contentions , the state of Praakrit violated the international norms to which is
signatory.

Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly
resolution 45/111 of 14 December 1990

1.All prisoners shall be treated with the respect due to their inherent dignity and value as human
beings.2. There shall be no discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, sex, language, religion,
political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.3. It is,
however, desirable to respect the religious beliefs and cultural precepts of the group to which
prisoners belong, whenever local conditions so require.45These principles are some of basic
principles which is obliged to be followed.

45
https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/basicprinciplestreatmentofprisoners.aspx

22 | P a g e
LOCUS STANDI AND PIL

In 1981 Justice P. N. Bhagwati in .S. P. Gupta v. Union of India46 , articulated the concept of
PIL as follows, “Where a legal wrong or a legal injury is caused to a person or to a determinate
class of persons by reason of violation of any constitutional or legal right or any burden is
imposed in contravention of any constitutional or legal provision or without authority of law or
any such legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or
determinate class of persons by reasons of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or
economically disadvantaged position unable to approach the court for relief, any member of
public can maintain an application for an appropriate direction, order or writ in the High Court
under Article 226 and in case any breach of fundamental rights of such persons or determinate
class of persons, in this court under Article 32 seeking judicial redress for the legal wrong or
legal injury caused to such person or determinate class of persons.”

The rule of locus standi have been relaxed and a person acting bonafide and having sufficient
interest in the proceeding of Public Interest Litigation will alone have a locus standi and can
approach the court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory
provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique
consideration.

The Supreme Court in Indian Banks’ Association, Bombay and ors v. M/s Devkala Consultancy
Service and Ors.47, held that “In an appropriate case, where the petitioner might have moved a
court in her private interest and for redressal of the personal grievance, the court in furtherance
of Public Interest may treat it a necessity to enquire into the state of affairs of the subject of
litigation in the interest of justice. Thus a private interest case can also be treated as public
interest case”.

46
1981 SUPP SCC 87
47
2004 (2) SCC 1

23 | P a g e
24 | P a g e