Docsity
Docsity

Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity


Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan


Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips

Moot memorial sample, Study Guides, Projects, Research of Law

Moot memorial sample about the structure, how to draft a memorial

Typology: Study Guides, Projects, Research

2019/2020
On special offer
30 Points
Discount

Limited-time offer


Uploaded on 10/26/2022

neeraj-gupga
neeraj-gupga 🇮🇳

3 documents

1 / 42

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
THE 7TH ANNUAL ADV. B. P. APTE MEMORIAL MOCK TRIAL, MOOT COURT
& JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2019.
Page 1 of 42
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[EXTRAORDINARY ORIGINAL JURISDICTION]
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO……….. OF 2019
A PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FILED UNDER ART 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF FINDIA,
1950
-------IN THE MATTER BETWEEN-------
KISHU RADO, MAA LIELA & ORS …………………PETITIONERS
v.
UNION OF FINDIA …………………RESPONDENT
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS LORDSHIP’S
COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF FINDIA
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS
pf3
pf4
pf5
pf8
pf9
pfa
pfd
pfe
pff
pf12
pf13
pf14
pf15
pf16
pf17
pf18
pf19
pf1a
pf1b
pf1c
pf1d
pf1e
pf1f
pf20
pf21
pf22
pf23
pf24
pf25
pf26
pf27
pf28
pf29
pf2a
Discount

On special offer

Partial preview of the text

Download Moot memorial sample and more Study Guides, Projects, Research Law in PDF only on Docsity!

& JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2019.

Page 1 of 42

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[EXTRAORDINARY ORIGINAL JURISDICTION]

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO……….. OF 2019

A PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FILED UNDER ART 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF FINDIA,

-------IN THE MATTER BETWEEN-------

KISHU RADO, MAA LIELA & ORS …………………PETITIONERS

v. UNION OF FINDIA …………………RESPONDENT UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS LORDSHIP’S COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF FINDIA WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

& JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2019.

Page 4 of 42

  1. Prof. VedKumari, with a foreword by UpendraBaxi, The Juvenile Justice System in India - From Welfare to Rights, 2004 DICTIONARIES
  2. Aiyar, Ramanatha P.: “The Law Lexicon”, Wadhwa& Company, 2ndEdn., Nagpur (2002).
  3. Black, Henry Campbell: Blacks Law Dictionary ‟6th Edn., Centennial Ed. (1891-1991).
  4. Curzon. L. B: “Dictionary Of Law”, Pitman Publishing, 4th Edn., New Delhi (1994).
  5. Garner, Bryan A.: “A Dictionary Of Modern Legal Usage”, Oxford University Press 2nd Edn., Oxford (1995).
  6. Greenberg, Daniel And Alexandra, Millbrook: “Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary Of Words & Phrases”, Vol. 2, 6th Edn., London: Sweet & Maxwell (2000).
  7. Justice Desai, M.C. And Aiyar, Subramanyam: “Law Lexicon & Legal Maxims”, 2nd Edn., Delhi: Delhi Law House (1980).
  8. Mitra, B.C. &Moitra, A.C., “Legal Thesarus”, University Book, Allahabad (1997).
  9. Moys, Elizabeth M., “Classification & Thesaurus For Legal Material”, 3rd Edn., London: Bowker Saur (1992).
  10. Oppe., A.S., “Wharton’s Law Lexicon”, 14th Edn., New Delhi: Sweet & Maxwell (1997).
  11. Prem, Daulatram, “Judicial Dictionary”, 1st Edn., Jaipur: Bharat Law Publication (1992)

TABLE OF CASES

  1. Central.Elecricity.Supply Utility of Odisha v. Dhobei Sahoo & Ors.,(2013) SCC 1005.
  2. Common Cause (A Regd. Society) vs Union Of India & Ors, Writ Petition (civil) 580 of
 - & JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, - Page 2 of 
  • INDEX OF AUTHORITIES...................................................................................................................
  • TABLE OF CASES…………………………………………………………………………………….
  • LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
  • STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
  • STATEMENT OF BRIEF FACTS
  • STATEMENT OF ISSUES
  • SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
  • ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
      1. Whether the instant Public Interest Litigation is maintainable before this Hon’ble Court?
      • 1.1 A. No Public Interest is involved:
      • 1.2 No Fundamental Right has been violated:
    • Infirmities And Are Therefore Ultra Vires The Constitution of Findia? 2. Whether The Sections 8(c) & 27 of the NDPS Act, 1985 Suffer From Any Constitutional
      • 2.1. Art 14 is not breached
      • 2.2. Art 19 (1) (g) is not breached
      • 2.3. No Violation of Art
    • Ultra Vires the Constitution Of Findia? 3. Whether Section 35 of the NDPS Act, 1985, which Attaches A Presumption Of Culpability, Is
      • 3.1. Proper Legislative Competence
      • 3.2. Constitutional Validity of S.
      • 3.3. Article 14 is not violated
      • 3.4. Differential Treatment is not Violative Per se
      • 3.5. Test of Arbitrariness..........................................................................................................
      • 3.6. Presumption of Constitutionality- Doctrine of Legitimacy..............................................
    • Constitution? 4. Whether the consumption of drugs can fall within the protective cover of Art 25 of the Findian
      • 4.1. CORE OF ESSENTIAL RELIGIOUS PRACTICE
      • REGARDED AS ESSENTIAL: 4.2. CONSTITUTION SHOULD BE THE TOUCHSTONE FOR ANY PRACTICE TO BE
      • 4.3. TEST OF RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION
  • PRAYER - & JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, - Page 5 of
    1. A. K. Roy vs Union Of India And Anr, 1982 SCR (2)
    1. Abdul Rashid vs. State of Gujarat [AIR 2000 SC 821]
    1. Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam v. Government of Tamil Nadu (2016) 2 SCC
    1. Ameeroonissa Begum v. Mahboob begum, 1953 SCR 404 (417).......................................
    1. Ameeroonissa Begum v. Mehboob Begum, 1953 SCR 404(414
    1. Ameeroonissa v. Mahboob, AIR 1953 SC 951....................................................................
    1. Anil Verma v. Harish Kumar, Cr. Appeal No.453 of
    1. Ashok Kumar Pandey v. The State Of West Bengal, (2004) 3 SCC
    1. Ashok Kumar Pandey v. The State Of West Bengal, (2004) 3 SCC 349.
    1. Ashok Leyland Ltd. V. Union of India, (1997) 9 SCC
    1. Babu Ram v. State of U.P(1995) 2 SCC
    1. Babulal Amthalal Mehta v. Collector of customs, Calcutta, (1957) SCR
    1. Babulal Amthalal Mehta v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta, AIR 1957 SC 877,
    1. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India & Others, 1984 SCR (2) 67............................
    1. Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.230-231 OF
    1. Board of Trustees v. State of Delhi, AIR 1962 SC
    1. Board of trustees v. State of Delhi, AIR 1962 SC 458(471)..............................................
    1. Budhan Chowdry v. State of Bihar, 1955(1) SCR 1045 (1049)
    1. Chandra Bhawan Boarding and Lodging v. State of Mysore, AIR 1970 SC
    1. Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti v. State of U.P & Ors.,AIR (1990) SC 2060.........................
    1. Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. The Union of India And Others, 1950 SCR
    1. Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri vs The Union Of India 1951 AIR
    1. Chiranjit Lal v. Union of India. (1950) S.C.R.869
    1. Chirendra v. Legal Remembrancer, AIR 1954 SC 424.
    1. Cochin Devaswom Bd. V. Vamana Setti, AIR 1966 SC
    1. Cochin Devaswom Bd. V. Vamana Setti, AIR 1966 SC
    • 782 - 28. Commissioner of Police v. Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta, (2004) 12 SCC 770,
    • 782 - 29. Commissioner of Police Vs. Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta, (2004) 12 SCC 770,
    • 782 - Commissioner of Police Vs. Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta, (2004) 12 SCC 770,
    • Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, 1954 AIR 282, (1954). 30. Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha
      • & JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION,
        • Page 6 of
    1. Dargah Committee vs. Syed Hussain Ali , AIR 1961 SC 1402................................... 36,
    1. Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State Of Maharashtra & Ors.,(2005) 1 SCC
    1. Dhanapal & Ors vs State By Public Prosecutor, 1985 (1) MLJ (Crl)
    1. Dharam Dutt & Ors v. Union Of India & Ors, (2004) 1 SCC
    1. Dlamini; S v. Dladla and others 1999(7) BCLR
    1. Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India & Ors.,(2004) 3 SCC 363.................................................
    1. Dr.Surbahmaniam Swamy v. State of Kerala, WP(C).No. 35180 of 2009........................
    1. Durand Didier v. Chief Secretary, Union Territory of Goa 1989 AIR (1966)
    1. East India Tobacco Ltd. V. State of A.P., AIR 1962 SC
    • [1981] 1 SCC 568................................................................................................................. 43. Fertiliser Corporation Kamgar Union (Regd.), Sindri and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors,
    1. Gian Singh v. State Of Punjab & Anr, (2012) 10 SCC 303..............................................
    1. Gopi chand v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1959 Supp. (2) SCR 87...................................
    1. Government of Andhra Pradesh &Ors. V. Smt. P. Laxmi Devi,(2008) 4 SCC 720.
    1. Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India (2018) 8 SCALE
    1. Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank Ltd v. United Yarn Tex (P) Ltd Appeal (civil)
    • of 2004..................................................................................................................................
    1. Hanif v. State of Bihar, AIR 1958 SC
    1. Har Shankar & Ors. v. The Dy. Excise & Taxation Commr, 1975 SCR (3)
    1. Harakchand Ratanchand Banthia v. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC
    1. Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto & Ors.,(2010) 9 SCC 655.
    1. Harnam Singh v. R.T.A, 1954 SCR
    1. Harnam Singh v. R.T.A., 1954 SCR
    1. Hinsa Virodhak Sangh v. Mirzapur Moti Kuresh Jamat & Ors. [(2008) 5 SCC 33]
    1. Holicow Pictures Pvt.Ltd v. Prem Chandra Mishra & Ors.,AIR (2008) SC
    • (Civil) No. 373 of 57. Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. v. State Of Kerala & Ors., Writ Petition
    1. IndraSawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477.
    1. Jagdish Negi v. State Of U.P. And Anr, (1997 (7) SCC 203)
    1. Janata Dal v. H.S. Choudhary, (1992) (4) SCC
    1. Justice K.S. Puttasamy (Retd) V. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC
    1. K. Veeraswamy v. Union of India, [1991] Insc
    1. Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel vs. Union of India & Ors. [(1995) 4 SCC
    1. Kansing Kalusing Thakore & Ors.v. Rabari Maganbhai Vashrambhai, (2006) 9 SCR
    1. Kazi Lhendup Dorji v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (1994) 3 SCR 201.....................
    1. Kedar Nath Bajoria And Anr v. The State Of West Bengal , AIR 1954 SC
    1. Kedar Nath Bajoria v. State of W.B., AIR 1953 SC
    1. Kewal singh v. Lajwanti, AIR 1980 SC
    1. Krishna A.S v. State of Madras, 1957 SCR 399 (414)
      • & JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION,
        • Page 7 of
    1. Krishna Swami v. Union of India, (1992) 4 SCC 605.
    1. Kumar Mukherjee v. Local Board of Barpeta, AIR 1965 SC
    1. Kushum Lata v. Union of India & Ors., AIR (2006) SC
    1. LaxmiKhandsari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1981) 2 SCC
    1. M.G. Badappanavar v. State of Karnataka, (2001) 2 SCC
    1. M/S Swastik Gases P.Ltd vs Indian Oil Corp.Ltd, [2013] 7 S.C.R.
    1. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Anr. (1978) 1 SCC
    1. Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur V. Punjab State Electricity Board. & ors., (2010)
    • SCC
    1. N. Adithayan v. Travancore Devaswom Board and others, (2002) 8 SCC
    1. N. Adithayan v. Travancore Devaswom Board and others, (2002) 8 SCC 106.
    1. Namit Sharma v. Union of India, (2013) 1 SCC 745.........................................................
    1. Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar & Ors. v. State Of Maharashtra, AIR (1967) SC
    1. National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, AIR 2014 SC
    1. Neetu v. State of Punjab & Ors., AIR (2007) SC
    1. Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State Of Punjab & Ors, (2009) 1 SCC 441.................................
    1. Noor Aga vs State Of Punjab &Anr, (2008) 16 SCC
    1. P.N. Krishna Lal v. Govt. of Kerala, 1995 Supp (2) SCC
    1. P.Seshadri v. S.Mangati Gopal Reddy & Ors.,(2011) 5 SCC
    1. Pannalal Bansilal Pitti v. State of A.P., (1996) 2 SCC
    1. Parayankandiyal Erkavath Kanapravan Kalliani Amma v. K. Devi, (1996) 4 SCC
    1. Pathumma v. State of Kerala, AIR 1978 SC 771;..............................................................
    1. People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India & Others, AIR (1982) SC
    1. Piyush Kantilal Mehta v. Commissioner Of Police, 1988 SCR Supl. (3)1081
    1. Prabu das Morarjee Rajkotia v. Union of India, AIR 1966 SC
    1. Prabu Das Morarjee Rajkotia v. Union of India, AIR 1966 SC
    1. R.K. Garg v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC
    1. Raj Kumar v. UOI AIR
    1. Raja Bira Kishore Deb v. State of Orissa(1964) 7 SCR
    1. Rajasthan v. Shankar LalParmar, AIR 2012 SC
    1. Rajbala & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors writ petition (civil) no. 671 of
    1. Rajiv Ranjan Singh Lalan & Anr v. Union of India & Ors.,(2006) 6 SCC
    • 2013)..................................................................................................................................... 101. Rajpal Sharma And Others vs State Of U.P.Thru Principal (WRIT - A No. - 5731 of
    1. Ram Krishna Dalmia v. State of Bihar,AIR 1958 SC 53.................................................
    1. Ramnath Verma v. State of Rajasthan , AIR 1967 SC
    1. Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State Of Maharashtra, 1965 SCR (1)
    1. Ranju Gopal Mukherjee & Anr. v. State Of West Bengal & Ors.,W.P 441 of 2018.......
    1. Ratilal Panachand Gandhi Vs. State Of Bombay (1954) SCR
    1. Raunaq International ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd., (1999) 1 SCC
    1. Ritu Prasad Sharma v. State of Assam, (2015) 9 SCC
    1. Rohit bhai J Patel v. The State of Gujarat, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 508 OF
    1. Roy Romer, Governor of Colorado. v. Richard G. Evans, 517 U.S.
    - & JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, - Page 8 of 
    1. Royappa E.P v. State of T.N., AIR 1974 SC
    1. S.P Gupta v. Union of India, AIR (1982) SC
    1. S.P Mittal v. Union of India, 1983 SCR (1) 729, (1983)
    1. Salabiaku v. Grance [1988] 13 ECHRR 379 at
    1. Sardar Syadna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. The State of Bombay 1962 AIR
    1. Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay [1962] Suppl. 2 SCR
    1. Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. The State of Bombay, 1962 AIR
    1. Sharma Transport v. Government of A.P(2002) 2 SCC 188.
    • 3 SCR 242 : AIR 1966 SC 119. Shastri Yagnapurushadiji and others v. Muldas Bhundardas Vaishya and another (1966)
    1. Shyara Bano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1.
    1. Smt. Angoori Devi For Ram Ratan vs Union Of India & Ors, 1989 AIR
    1. Smt. Sunita Bugga vs Director Of Education And Others2010 (7) AD (Del)
    1. State of A. P. &Ors. v. McDowell & Co. &Ors [(1996) 3 SCC 709]..............................
    1. State of A. P. &Ors. v. McDowell & Co. &Or s [(1996) 3 SCC
    1. State of A.P. v. McDowell (1996) 3 SCC
    1. State of A.P. v. McDowell ( 1996) 3 SCC
    1. State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr vs Nalla Raja Reddy & Ors, 1967 SCR (3)
    1. State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Challa Ramkrishna Reddy & Ors, (2000) 5 SCC
    1. State of Bihar v. Bihar Distillery Ltd., (1997) 2 SCC 453...............................................
    1. State of Bombay v. Balsara F.N 1951 SCR
    1. State Of Kerala & Anr v. N. M. Thomas & Ors, 1976 SCR (1)
        1. State of Kerala v. Peoples Union for civil Liberties. Civil Appeals Nos. 104-105 of
    1. State of Punjab & Ors v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga JT 1997 (1) SC
    1. State of Uttranchal v. Balwanth Singh Chaufal, (2010) 3 SCC
    1. State ofU.P v. Kartar Singh, AIR 1964 SC
    1. Syed Md. V. State of Andhra, 1954 SCR
    1. T.M.A .Pai Foundation and Ors. v. State Of Karnataka and Ors, AIR 2003 SC
    • of Shirur Mutt, AIR 1954 SC 282 35, 138. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Swamiar
    1. The State of Gujarat & Anr., v. Shri Ambica Mills Ltd., AIR (1974) SC 1300.
    1. The State of West Bengal V. Anwar All Sarkarhabib Mohamed, [1952] INSC
    1. Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1963 SC
    1. Tilokchand Motichand & Ors. v. H.B. Munshi & Anr., AIR (1979) SC 898..................
    1. V.S. Rice and Oil Mills v. State of A.P., AIR 1964 SC 1781..........................................
    1. Vivian Joseh Ferreira & Anr vs Municipal Corporation, 1972 SCR (2)

& JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2019.

Page 10 of 42 UOI : Union of India US : United States UK : United Kingdom v : versus

& JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2019.

Page 11 of 42

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioners have approached this Hon’ble Supreme Court of Findia under Art 32 of the Findian Constitution, 1950^1 , through a Public Interest Litigation. The Respondent reserves the right to contest the maintainability of the present litigation. (^1) 32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part (1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed (2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part (3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 ) and ( 2 ), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause ( 2 ) (4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution

& JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2019.

Page 13 of 42 heroin, an addictive substance. Maa Liela said that the powder was used for meditation. They also came across a brief case on the 1st floor of the house with 2 packets of the similar powder which were seized, sealed and sent for chemical analysis. The trio was arrested complying with the due procedure specified under the NDPS Act, 1985. Charges were framed against the three of them under the Act. Filing of PIL: (vi) Aggrieved, Kishu and Maa Liela took the defense of Right to Privacy as the activities were within the four corners of their house, didn’t disturb any third person and hence the State has no right to interfere. They filed a PIL in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Findia challenging to constitutionality of S.27 of the NDPS Act along with several other petitions challenging various other provisions. The petitions were clubbed to be heard together. They also prayed for a stay on the trial till the Supreme Court decided on the said PIL. However, the Supreme Court allowed the trial to proceed on its own accord.

& JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2019.

Page 14 of 42

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. WHETHER THE INSTANT PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IS MAINTAINABLE

BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT?

2. WHETHER THE SECTIONS 8(C) & 27 OF THE NDPS ACT, 1985 SUFFER FROM

ANY CONSTITUTIONAL INFIRMITIES AND ARE THEREFORE ULTRA VIRES THE

CONSTITUTION OF FINDIA?

3. WHETHER SECTION 35 OF THE NDPS ACT, 1985 WHICH ATTACHES A

PRESUMPTION OF CULPABILITY, IS ULTRA VIRES THE CONSTITUTION OF

FINDIA?

4. WHETHER THE CONSUMPTION OF DRUGS CAN FALL WITHIN THE PROTECTIVE

COVER OF ARTICLE 25?

& JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2019.

Page 16 of 42 not violate Art 14 of the Findian Constitution as it a “reasonable classification” based on intelligible differentia, and this classification has a rational nexus to the object of the Act, without which the object of the Act cannot be achieved. Therefore, it is submitted that this provision is not arbitrary.

4. WHETHER THE CONSUMPTION OF DRUGS CAN FALL WITHIN THE PROTECTIVE COVER OF ARTICLE 25? The Respondent submit with utmost venerance that only religious practices that are “essential to the religion” will receive protection under the umbrella of Art 25 of the Findian Constitution. It is contended that the usage of “drugs” does not constitute the essential religious practice of any religion, in fact all religions view the usage of drugs with utmost contempt. Further, it is also submitted that “public order, morality and health” are exceptions to soliciting protection under Art 25 of the Findian Constitution and all the three restrictions apply in the present context, thereby making it impossible for the consumption of drugs to be protected under Art 25 of the Findian Constitution.

& JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2019.

Page 17 of 42

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. Whether the instant Public Interest Litigation is maintainable before this Hon’ble Court? The Petitioner has filed a Public Interest Litigation by invoking Art 32 of the Findian Constitution^2. The Respondent humbly submits that the PIL is not tenable in the eyes of law as there is not an iota of “public interest” [A] in the given case, rather only private interest is involved and no fundamental right has been repugnantly violated [B]. 1.1 A. No Public Interest is involved: (a) Lexically, the expression "PIL" means the legal action initiated in a Court of law for the enforcement of public interest or general interest in which the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.^3 However, this has become a procedure that is widely abused.^4 It has evolved to become "publicity interest litigation^5 " or "private interest litigation^6 " or "politics interest litigation^7 " or the latest trend being "paise income litigation".^8 (b) If not properly regulated and abuse averted it also becomes a tool in unscrupulous hands to release vendetta and wreck vengeance^9. There must be real and genuine public interest involved in the litigation and not merely an adventure of knight errantor poke ones into for a probe^10. Courts of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants by (^2) Page 6, Moot Court Proposition (^3) Janata Dal v. H.S. Choudhary, (1992) (4) SCC 305. (^4) Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State Of Maharashtra & Ors.,(2005) 1 SCC 590. Also in: Kansing Kalusing Thakore & Ors.v. Rabari Maganbhai Vashrambhai, (2006) 9 SCR 196; Rajiv Ranjan Singh Lalan & Anr v. Union of India & Ors.,(2006) 6 SCC 613. (^5) Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India & Others, 1984 SCR (2) 67. (^6) Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State Of Punjab & Ors, (2009) 1 SCC 441 (^7) Common Cause (A Regd. Society) vs Union Of India & Ors, Writ Petition (civil) 580 of 2003 (^8) Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India & Ors.,(2004) 3 SCC 363. (^9) S.P Gupta v. Union of India, AIR (1982) SC 149. (^10) Kazi Lhendup Dorji v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (1994) 3 SCR 201.

& JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2019.

Page 19 of 42 Court decides to rule for the Petitioners in the instant case, there will be more “public harm” and “public injury” than “public good”, which is the very essence of a Public Interest Litigation^23. The Respondent submits that the instant litigation is against public interest itself and if allowed will cause gross miscarriage of justice and thereby stands untenable in the eyes of law. (f) For a PIL to be maintainable the interest of a substantial segment of the population should have been affected and they should not be in a position to approach this Apex Court owing to their down-trodden social and economic conditions, due to which the Petitioner will acquire locus standi to file the PIL.^24 The public interest litigation should not be merely a cloak for attaining private ends of a third party or of the party bringing the petition^25. In the instant case, it is pertinent to note that the Petitioners have already been arrested for the illegal usage of drugs under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985^26 and the trial is taking place. (f) They decided to file this Public Interest Litigation right after their arrest, which ipso facto demonstrates the private interest involved in this case, under the garb of public interest. This clearly is an abuse of process^27 that is being done by the Petitioners and clearly in violation of the principles of when a PIL can be filed. The Respondent humbly submits that this is a “private interest litigation” clothed as a “public interest litigation” which is clearly against the settled principles of law. If the “impugned provisions^28 ” that are being challenged are struck down, the Petitioners will be hugely benefitted as they will be discharged from their liability under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 under which they have been arrested and this clearly shows the “private interest involved” in the instant litigation. (g) Such frivolous petitions bring down the very sanctum and purity attached to the process of filing a PIL that is meant to be allowed by this Court only after extreme circumspection and scrutiny^29 , in the Respondent’s humble submission. So, The Respondent reverently contends that viewed from any angle, this PIL stands untenable in this Hon’ble Apex Court because there is an absence of “substantial public interest” and involves only private interest. (^23) Fertiliser Corporation Kamgar Union (Regd.), Sindri and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors, [1981] 1 SCC 568 (^24) People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India & Others, AIR (1982) SC 1473. Also in: Ranju Gopal Mukherjee & Anr. v. State Of West Bengal & Ors.,W.P 441 of 2018. (^25) Raunaq International ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd., (1999) 1 SCC 492. (^26) Page 6 of the Moot Court Proposition. (^27) Gian Singh v. State Of Punjab & Anr, (2012) 10 SCC 303. (^28) S. 8 (c), S. 27 and S. 35 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. (^29) Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur V. Punjab State Electricity Board. & ors., (2010) 13 SCC 216.

& JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2019.

Page 20 of 42 1.2 No Fundamental Right has been violated: (a) The powers of the Supreme Court of Findia under Art.32 of Findian Constitution is wide and it can be used to reinstate the fundamental rights of individuals when they have been denied.^30 PIL’s can be entertained when the rights of individuals guaranteed by Part III of the Findian Constitution have been grossly violated.^31 (b) The Respondent deferentially submits that there is no fundamental right of the Petitioners that is violated in the present case as the Respondent will be establishing by virtue of the forth coming issues. The Sections that are being challenged in the instant case^32 are constitutionally valid and there is no legal nexus or basis to contend them as being unconstitutional; this will be proved by the Respondents in the forth coming issues. (c) Any writ petition becomes unsustainable in this Hon’ble Court where it has been satisfactorily established that no fundamental right is violated^33. Moreover, there is no element “genuine public harm” or “genuine public injury”^34 that has to be redressed in the present case. In fact, the Respondent fails to see the essence of any “public interest” being present in the instant matter at all. Moreover, as already explained, admission of the present litigation will lead to more public harm than good; the instant litigation if allowed will go against public order, morality and health, which are reasonable restrictions on Fundamental Rights laid down by the Findian Constitution.^35 Hence, by virtue of this fact also, this PIL is not maintainable, in the Respondent’s considered view.

2. Whether The Sections 8(c) & 27 of the NDPS Act, 1985 Suffer From Any Constitutional Infirmities And Are Therefore Ultra Vires The Constitution of Findia? The Respondent submit with utmost reverence before this Hon’ble Court that S. 8 (c) and S. 27 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 are intra vires the Findian (^30) Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar & Ors. v. State Of Maharashtra, AIR (1967) SC 1. (^31) Tilokchand Motichand & Ors. v. H.B. Munshi & Anr., AIR (1979) SC 898. (^32) S. 8 (c), S. 27 and S. 35 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. (^33) The State of Gujarat & Anr., v. Shri Ambica Mills Ltd., AIR (1974) SC 1300. (^34) Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto & Ors.,(2010) 9 SCC 655. (^35) T.M.A .Pai Foundation and Ors. v. State Of Karnataka and Ors, AIR 2003 SC 355.