Team Code: INRR 44

INTERNAL NATIONAL RANKING ROUNDS

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF PICARONES

AT MOCHI

Writ Petition (PIL) No.: 53/2022

MOCHI PUBLIC WELFARE ASSOCIATION

V.

UNION OF PICARONES

BEFORE SUBMISSION TO HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE

AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES

OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF PICARONES

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................... i

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................................ ii
LIST OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................................... iii
STATEMENT OF JUSRISDICTION................................................................................... iv
STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................................... v
STATEMENT OF ISSUES .................................................................................................. vi
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ............................................................................................... 1
ISSUE 1 ................................................................................................................................ 1
ISSUE 2 ................................................................................................................................ 6
ISSUE 3 .............................................................................................................................. 13
ISSUE 4 .............................................................................................................................. 17
PRAYER ............................................................................................................................ 21

~i~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR All India Report

Appl. Appellant

Art. Article

Const. Constitution

HC High Court

NPCP National Penal Code of Picarones

Ors. Others
Picarones Criminal Procedure
PCPA
(Identification) Act

PCC Picarones Criminal Code

Re. In the matter of

S Section

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

Sd/- Signed Already

UN United Nations

v. Versus

International Covenant on Civil and

ICCPR
Political Rights
International Covenant on Economic,
ICESCR
Social and Cultural Rights

UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights

~ii~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 LIST OF AUTHORITIES

CASE LAWS

 Ananth v. State of Andhra Pradesh

 Asha Ranjan vs. State of Bihar & Ors 2017 (4) SCC 397
 District Registrar and Collector v. Canara bank, AIR 2005 SC 186
 E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1974 SC 555
 Fertilizers Corp. Kamgar Union v UOI AIR 1881 SC 344
 Hussainara Khatoon & Others v Home Secretary, 1989 AIR 1369
 Indian Banks’ Association, Bombay and Ors. v M/s Devkala Consultancy Services
and Ors, Appeal (civil) 4655 of 2000
 Jitendra v. State of Maharashtra 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 8600.
 Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) vs. Union of India, W.P. (Civil) No 494 of 2012.
 K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2018) 1 SCC 809.
 Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India 1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621
 Navtej Singh Johar v UOI, AIR 2018 SC 4321
 Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation , 1985 SCC (3) 545
 Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v UOI, 1982 SCC (3) 235
 Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v UOI, 1982 SCC (3) 235
 Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263
 SP Gupta v UOI, AIR 1982 S.C 149
 State of Andhra Pradesh v. Challa Ramkrishna Reddy
 State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad 1961 AIR 1808, 1962 SCR (3) 10.
 Sunil Batra v Delhi Administration and Others, 1980 AIR 1579

STATUTES

 The Constitution of India, 1950

 The Indian Penal Code, 1860
 The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
 The Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022

ARTICLES & BOOKS

 Law Commission of India, Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, Report No. 87,
August, 1980.
 Udai Raj Rai, Fundamental Rights and their Enforcement, Prentice Hall India Pvt. Ltd.,
January, 2011.
 Thio S.M., Locus Standi and Judicial Review, Singapore University Press, 1971.
 Bakshi, P. M. Journal of the Indian Law Institute, vol. 20, no. 3, 1978, pp. 482–94.
 Dongre, Jay, Critical analysis of the Doctrine of excessive delegation in India, 2021

~iii~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 STATEMENT OF JUSRISDICTION

The jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court is invoked under Article 32 of the Constitution issuing
the writ of mandamus to file Public Interest Litigation under judicial activism concerning the
public at large.1

1
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

~iv~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

Kataifi University is located in Mochi- the capital of the sovereign, secular and democratic
republic of Picarones. Mr. Xeno Syrinki was a final year student pursuing his Masters in
Political Science from Kataifi University. He was the founding president of a Debate and
Awareness club called Unagi. Both Mr. Syrinki and his club secretary Mr. Longan Persimmon
belonged to a minority religion in Picarones.
After Mr. Syrinki’s loss at the University Student Body elections, Mr. Longan posted on his
private Twitter account claiming the entire elections to be rigged and that religion and money
play a major role in deciding the winner. He also posted this on the social media pages of Unagi
with the caption “FIGHT FOR FREEDOM.” His tweet was retweeted and shared by numerous
members of Unagi, making it go viral. The day after this tweet was made, there were small
scale protests and scuffles on account of the results of the elections.
On the 10th of April, Mr. Longan was arrested and an FIR was filed against him under sections
124A and 153A of the National Penal Code of Picarones (NPCP). The University took
immediate action to disband all clubs and related activities. Xeno and other members of Unagi
decided to peacefully protest against Longan’s arrest by gathering outside the campus premises.
They averred that arresting Longan under Section 124A of the NPCP amounted to
disproportionate and gross misuse of the power vested in the police authorities. Despite that
the protest was not granted permission by the local police authorities and section 144 of the
Picarones Criminal Code (PCC) was imposed in and around Kataifi University, large numbers
of students from numerous other colleges joined the members of Unagi and other students of
Kataifi University on the day of the protest. Hence, the Mochi police authorities arrested Xeno
and 20 other protestors and forcefully evicted the remaining protestors. The police issued a
statement that the arrested parties had anti-nationalistic agenda and that the social media pages
of Unagi indicated that the club’s agenda was always rebellious and anti-government in nature
thus indicating that they had terrorist links.
At the police station, all the detained parties were coerced into giving their finger impressions,
palm-prints, foot-prints, photographs, iris and retina scans, physical, biological samples and
their analysis along with the other relevant body measurements in accordance with the
Picarones Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022.
Ms. Vitara, Xeno’s lawyer, through Mochi Public Welfare Association, filed a Public Interest
Litigation under Article 32 of the Picaronian Constitution before the Supreme Court of
Picarones.

~v~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

I. WHETHER THE PETITIONER HAS SUFFICIENT LOCUS STANDI TO FILE THE PIL
PETITION?

II. WHETHER SECTION 124-A OF THE NATIONAL PENAL CODE OF PICARONES IS

CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?

III. WHETHER PICARONES CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (IDENTIFICATION) ACT, 2022

IS VIOLATIVE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER THE
PICARONIAN CONSTITUTION?

IV. WHETHER SECTION 8 OF THE PICARONES CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

(IDENTIFICATION) ACT, 2022 SUFFERS FROM EXCESIVE DELEGATION AND IS
THUS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

~vi~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

~ ISSUE I ~
WHETHER THE PETITIONER HAS SUFFICIENT LOCUS STANDI TO FILE THIS
PETITION?
It is humbly submitted to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Picarones that under Article 32 of the
Constitution of Picarones provides the petitioner sufficient locus standi to file this petition by
drawing on the interconnection between the essentials of a PIL, violations of fundamental
rights and the nature of Section 124- A, under the ambit NPCP and PCPA.

~ ISSUE II ~
WHETHER SECTION 124- A OF NATIONAL CODE OF PICARONES IS
CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?
It is humbly submitted that Section 124- A of National Code of Picarones is unconstitutional
in nature due to the invalidity of the pre-colonial law and its violation of Article 19 which is
guaranteed to all the citizens of Picarones under its Constitution.

~ ISSUE III ~
WHETHER PICARONES CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (IDENTIFICATION) ACT,
2022 IS IN VIOLATION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS GUARANTEED
UNDER THE PICARONES CONSTITUTION?
It is humbly submitted that the PCPA shows an emphatic bias towards state interests and is in
blatant violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the individual under Part III of the
Picaronian Constitution namely the right to equality before the law (Article 14), the right
against self-incrimination (Article 20(3)) and the right to life and personal liberty (Article 21).

~ ISSUE IV ~
WHETHER SECTION 8 OF THE PICARONES CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
(IDENIFICATION) ACT, 2022 SUFFERS FROM EXCESSIVE DELEGATION AND
IS THUS UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
It is most humbly submitted that the PCPA operates in grave contravention to the Fundamental
Rights of Speech, Expression, Peaceful Assembly, Life and Liberty under Articles 19 and 20
as well as suffers from excessive delegation brought to light u/s 8 of said act, the utter ambiguity
and scope of which proves disproportional to innocents trapped in a complex legal machinery.

~vii~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1

1 WHETHER THE PETITIONER HAS SUFFICIENT LOCUS STANDI TO FILE

THIS PETITION?
1. The Petitioners would humbly like to submit to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Piacrones
that under Article 32 of the Constitution of Picarones the petitioner has sufficient locus
standi to file this petition. The arguments justifying the same are three fold: firstly, we
look into the essentials of a PIL and how even in the current case there is violation of
fundamental rights and hence falls under the ambit of a PIL. Secondly, we look into
how Section 124- A of National Penal Code of Picarones is violative in nature and
further proving how the petitioner has locus standi to bring this issue up. Similarly,
thirdly, how the Criminal (Identification) Act also is violative in nature and hence
giving the petitioner the right to file this petition.

1.1 Defining Locus Standi

2. The petitioners would humbly like to submit to this Hon’ble Court that the Merriam
Webster defines the Latin term ‘locus standi’ as a right to appear in court on a given
question or right to be heard and Order VII Rule 11 of Picarones Criminal Code
embodies this particular principle. 2
3. It is further submitted that the Latin phrase locus standi directly translates to "place of
standing." It alludes to one's position in a court of law. It refers to a person's ability or
right to file a lawsuit or show up in court. Invoking the court's jurisdiction is a legal
capability. One cannot be heard in court without locus standi. The Supreme Court's
easing of the traditional rule of standing is the main characteristic of Public Interest
Litigation. Anyone may petition a court of law in a Public Interest Litigation on behalf
of individuals who have been wronged. This modification of locus standi was done to
prevent arbitrary State action, provide an accountable administration, and address
issues like poverty, ignorance, lack of knowledge, and exploitation of large populations.
It was also done to reduce the expense of litigation and democratize justice. 3

2
Merriam Webster Dictionary, 680, (11th ed, 2020)
3
Yash Thakur, Locus Standi: Meaning and essential ingredients of locus standi Legal Study Material (2021),
https://legalstudymaterial.com/locus-standi-meaning-and-essential-ingredients-of-locus-standi/ (last visited Sep
9, 2022).

~1~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 4. The petitioners would like to bring to the notice of this Hon’ble Court the case of
Fertilizers Corp. Kamgar Union v UOI where the entire concept of how PIL acts as an
exception to locus standi was brought in. The Supreme Court stated, "Taking a broader
perspective of the subject of locus to commence a lawsuit may become required in light
of the evolving understanding of legal rights and social obligations. In his concurring
opinion in the same case, Justice Krishna Iyer introduced the phrase "public interest
litigation" for the first time in an official sense. Concurrence noted that "standing" in
civil action of that type must enjoy a liberal reception at the court doorsteps" since
public interest litigation is a component of the participatory justice process. This led to
the emergence of public interest litigation as a tool for the judiciary to hold the
government responsible and to spur action against rights breaches. 4
5. Hence, the petitioners would like to submit that as an exception to locus standi they
have a valid ground to file this case….

1.2. PIL Under Article 32

6. It is humbly submitted that the Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary defines PIL as “A matter
of public or general interest does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying
curiosity or a love of information or amusement; but that in which a class of community
have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal right or liabilities are
affected.”5 However, the Constitution of India does not specifically define what PIL is
but finds mentions in certain provisions of the Constitution and certain other statutes.
7. The petitioners submit that the Constitution of Picarones under Article 32 provides
citizens with “the right to move to the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for
the enforcement of the rights conferred by this part is guaranteed”.6
8. In the case of S.P Gupta v UOI, Justice P.N. Bhagwati explained the concept of PIL
as :
9. “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

4
Fertilizers Corp. Kamgar Union v UOI AIR 1881 SC 344
5
Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary, 474, (10th ed, 2020)
6
India Const. Art. 32

~2~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 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.”7
10. Drawing reference to the above judgment and using it as a precedent the petitioners
would like to submit that in the present case their legal and fundamental right to
freedom of speech and expression has been violated. The violation here has been two-
fold, one being after the arrest of Mr. Xeno, collecting his personal information under
Picarones Criminal (Identification) Act and hence violating his right to privacy
guaranteed to him under Article 21. Secondly, booking Mr. Xeno under Section 124-A
for a tweet he posted exercising his right to freedom of speech and expression
guaranteed to him under Article 19 of the Constitution. Hence, the petitioners have a
right to file this petition.
11. The petitioners would further like to submit that in the case of Indian Banks’
Association, Bombay and Ors. v M/s Devkala Consultancy Services and Ors. the
Supreme Court held that
12. “In an appropriate case, where the petitioner might have moved a court in private
interest and for redressal of the personal grievance, the court in furtherance of Public
Interest may treat it a necessity to inquire 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 a
public interest case”.8
13. Hence, even though the petitioner’s private rights were violated he still has the ground
to file a petition under Article 32, since, both Picarones Criminal ( Identification) Act
and Section 124-A both violate rights of even the public in large.
14. It is submitted that in the case of Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v UOI, this very
court held that :

7
SP Gupta v UOI, AIR 1982 S.C 149
8
Indian Banks’ Association, Bombay and Ors. v M/s Devkala Consultancy Services and Ors, Appeal (civil)
4655 of 2000

~3~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 15. “The court now permits Public Interest Litigation or Social Interest Litigation at the
instance of “Public spirited citizens" for the enforcement of constitutional & legal
rights of any person or group of persons Public interest litigation is a part of the
process of participating in justice and standing in civil litigation of that pattern must
have liberal reception at the judicial door steps.”9
16. Since even in the present case Section 124- A and Picarones Criminal (Identification)
Act collectively violated the fundamental rights of the people in large and falls under
the essential of ‘ public interest’ and hence the petitioners have a legal ground to file
this petition.
17. The petitioners would further like to submit that in the case of Navtej Singh Johar v
UOI, this very Hon'ble Court allowed the petition for striking down Section 377 of
Picarones Penal Code since it violated the fundamental rights of the citizens. 10
Similarly, in this case the petitioners are pleading for striking down of Section 124- A
since it’s in violation of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.
18. It is further submitted that Public Interest Litigation means litigation filed to serve the
interest of the public by a public spirited person. Four conditions to be fulfilled for
existence of a Public Interest Litigation are as follows:
 Some action, inaction or State of affairs
 Which violates the rights of large number of people, or causes a large number
of people, or causes a large number of people to suffer a similar wrong
 The right is sought to be enforced or the wrong redressed, through a petition to
the court
 By a public spirited person or an association of persons acting on the behalf of
the others.11
19. This was also reiterated in the cases of Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation12,
Hussainara Khatoon & Others v Home Secretary13, State of Bihar and S.P Gupta v
UOI.14 Hence, if we apply these four essentials to the present case we can notice that it

9
Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v UOI, 1982 SCC (3) 235
10
Navtej Singh Johar v UOI, AIR 2018 SC 4321
11
Dharmendra Kumar, Bbau.ac.in, Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University, a Central University
http://bbau.ac.in/index.aspx (2020), https://www.bbau.ac.in/ (last visited Sep 9, 2022).
12
Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation , 1985 SCC (3) 545
13
Hussainara Khatoon & Others v Home Secretary, 1989 AIR 1369
14
Ibid.

~4~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 satisfies all the four conditions. There was an action by the state that violated the
petitioner’s fundamental rights, the same action in question (Acting upon Section 124-
A and Picarones Criminal (Identification) Act) violated the rights of the people at large
as well, the right is the be evidently sought through this petition and lastly, but, most
importantly it was filed in the spirit of public interest.

20. The Court would further like to submit that The courts’ interventions have played a
pivotal role in advancing the protection of civil liberties and has been an invaluable
innovative judicial remedy that has translated the rhetoric of fundamental rights into
living reality and for at least some segments of exploited and downtrodden humanity. 15
Hence, it is submitted that this Hon’ble Court looks into the blatant violation of civil
liberties that Section 124- A and Picarones Criminal (Identification Act) has entailed.
21. It is further submitted that in the case of Sunil Batra v Delhi Administration and Others
the side for the petitioners quoted the judgment given by the Supreme Court in the case
of Dwarkanath v Income Tax Officer and said:
“Where injustice, verging on inhumanity, emerges from hacking human rights
guaranteed in Part III and the victim beseeches the Court to intervene and relieve, the
Court will be a functional futility as a constitutional instrumentality if it does not go
into action until the wrong is righted. The Court is not a distant abstraction omnipotent
in the books but an activist institution which is the cynosure of public hope. The court
can issue writs to meet the new challenges. Hence, the Court is empowered and has
jurisdiction under Article 32 to accept this case since there is violation of rights
guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.”16

1.3 Violation of Fundamental Rights Under Section 124-A of the PPC

22. It is humbly submitted that drafted by British historian-politician Sir Macaulay in 1837,
sedition was defined as an act by ‘whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by
signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred
or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government
established by law in India’.17

15
Hans Dembowski, Taking the state to court: public interest litigation and the public sphere in metropolitan
India (Oxford University Press, USA, 2001).
16
Sunil Batra v Delhi Administration and Others, 1980 AIR 1579
17
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 124- A, No. 186045, Act of Parliament, 1860 (India)

~5~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 23. It is further submitted that in the case of Romesh Thappar v State of Madras the
Supreme Court while interpreting the constitutionality of Section 124-A held that:
24. “Where a law purports to authorize the imposition of restrictions on a fundamental right
in language wide enough to cover restrictions both within and without the limits of
constitutionally permissible legislative action affecting such right, it is not possible to
uphold it even so far as it may be applied within the constitutional limits, as it is not
severable. So long as the possibility of its being applied for purposes not sanctioned by
the constitution cannot be ruled out, it must be held to be wholly unconstitutional and
void.” 18
25. Hence, using this interpretation of Section 124- A given by this very Court, it can be
said that this colonial section violates the fundamental right guaranteed under Article
19 and hence the petitioner has a sufficient ground to file this writ petition under Article
32.
26. It is submitted before this Hon'ble Court that the relationship between Section 124- A
and Article 19 of the Constitution is a strained one. In the case of Tata Press Ltd. v.
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. & Ors., emphasizing the importance of the freedom
of speech the Supreme Court observed: “Freedom of speech goes to the heart of the
natural right of an organized freedom-loving society to ‘impart and acquire information
about that common interest”.19
27. The petitioners would like to further submit to this Hon’ble Court that the Supreme Court
in the case of Common Cause v UOI accepted the writ petition filed by an NGO demanding
the decriminalization of Section 306 of the NPC, stating it violated peoples’ fundamental
rights and this very court accepted the writ petition filed under Article 32 and also delivered
a judgment decriminalizing the Section. 20 Hence, by using the above case as a precedent
the petitioners have appropriate locus standi to file this case.

18
Romesh Thappar v State of Madras the Supreme Court, AIR 124
19
Tata Press Ltd. v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. & Ors, 1995 AIR 2438
20
Common Cause v UOI, WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 215 OF 2005

~6~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 ISSUE 2

WHETHER SECTION 124- A OF NATIONAL CODE OF PICARONES IS

CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?

The petitioners would humbly like to submit that Section 124- A of National Code of Picarones
is unconstitutional in nature because, firstly, it’s in violation of Article 19 which is guaranteed
to all the citizens of Picarones under its Constitution. Secondly, this section being a pre-
colonial based law does not pass the test of validity and hence showcases to be invalid. Thirdly,
as per the National Crime Records Bureau the number of cases filed just in the year 2020 was
73, but, not a single person was convicted and hence burdening the judiciary for no appropriate
reason. Lastly, to deal with issues related to subject matter similar to Section 124- A, there are
already existing alternative provisions like under the National Security Act there are 18
provisions available to detain somebody for acts similar to sedition.

2.1 DEFINING SEDITION

1) It is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Court that the Black’s Law Dictionary defines
sedition as ‘an insurrectionary movement tending towards treason, but wanting an over act;
attempts made by meetings or speeches, or by publications, to disturb the tranquility of the
state.’21
2) It is further submitted that Section 124- A of the Picarones Penal Code defines Sedition
as: ‘Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representation, or
otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite
disaffection towards, the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with
imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may be
extended to three years, to which may be added, or with fine.22
3) The petitioners submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Nandan v State
of Uttar Pradesh23 quoted what Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, who addressed the violative

21
Black’s Law Dictionary, Sedition, ( 2nd ed. 1910)
22
Indian Penal Code, 1860, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India).
23
Ram Nandan v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1959 A11 101

~7~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
nature of Sedition while introducing the first Constitution of India (Amendment) Bill 1951,
and stated:
“Now so far as I am concerned that particular Section is highly objectionable and
obnoxious and it should have no place both for practical and historical reasons, if you
like, in any body of laws that we might pass. The sooner we get rid of it the better. We
might deal with that matter in other ways, in more limited ways, as every other country
does but that particular thing, as it is, should have no place, because all of us have had
enough experience of it in a variety of ways and apart from the logic of the situation,
our urges are against it.”24
4) The petitioners would further like to substantiate the above argument by stating that when
one of the main framers of the Constitution opined that Section 124-A is violative in nature
and goes against the basic principle of the right to freedom of speech and expression.

2.2 THE DEPICTION OF HISTORICAL CONSTITUTIONA;L VIOLATIONS THAT

SECTION 124-A HAS ENTAILED:
5) The petitioners humbly submit that in order to evaluate the Supreme Court’s view on
Section 124-A it is important to trace a brief survey of history, statutory as well as decisional,
of the law of sedition. This particular law has an extremely checkered history in India. The
National Penal Code of Picarones was originally drafted by the First Law Commission, chaired
by Sir Thomas Macaulay, and Section 124- A was not even a part of the original draft, however,
wordings similar to the section were provided under Section 113. After subsequent revisions,
once the Act was enacted, Section 113 was omitted.25
6) It is submitted before this Hon'ble Court that the initial and brutal application of Section
124- A can be traced back to the freedom struggle era of Picarones. This section was used by
the British Government to hush down the dissent put forth by famous freedom fighters like
M.K Gandhi, Chandrabose, etc. However, there were three cases in particular that set forth a
bad precedent for sedition. The first case being the case of Queen Empress v Bal Gangadhar
Tilak,26 where he was charged under Section 124- A for giving a speech expressing his opinion

24
Law Commission of India, Reforms in the Judiciary: Some Suggestions, Report No. 267, (30th August, 2018).
25
Jeanine Cali, Sedition law in India Sedition Law in India | In Custodia Legis: Law Librarians of Congress
(2012), https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2012/10/sedition-law-in-india/ (last visited Sep 9, 2022).
26
Queen Empress v Bal Gangadhar Tilak, (1917) 19 BOMLR 211

~8~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
during one of his speeches. Secondly, the case of Queen Empress v Jogendar Chandar Bose,27
where Bose was also similarly charged unjustly under Section 124- A. The third case and the
most important case, the case of In Re: Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi v Unknown,28 the
father of the nation was charged under this section for two of the articles that he wrote
criticizing the British Government.
6) It is further submitted that when Mahatma Gandhi was undergoing the trial for his sedition
charge, he criticized Section 124- A and opined that:
“…. Section 124- A under which I am happily charged is perhaps the prince amongst the
political sections of the IPC designed to suppress the liberty of the citizens. …”
It is hence argued that when famous freedom fighters like M.K Gandhi were of the opinion
that this colonial rule anguishes and curtails the right to provide dissent and hence being a bane
on right to freedom of speech and expression then the question posed before this court is do
we still need this law?
7) The Petitioners further submit that in the case Editors Guild of India v UOI,29 Chief Justice
of India (CJI) N.V. Ramana observed, “Sedition is a colonial law. It suppresses freedoms. It
was used against Mahatma Gandhi, Tilak... Is this law necessary after 75 years of
Independence?” He added, “If you look at the history of use of this Section 124A of IPC, you
will find that the conviction rate is very low. There is misuse of power by executive
agencies.” 30

2.3.FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION AND SEDITION:

8) The petitioners humbly submit that Article 19 of the Constitution of Picarones guarantees
the freedom of speech and expression to all citizens. Freedom of speech and expression is the
foundation of a democratic society and is one of the most cherished rights of a citizen. It is the
first condition of liberty and plays an important role in forming public opinion.

27
Queen Empress v Jogendar Chandar Bose, (1895) ILR 22 Cal 50
28
In Re: Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi v Unknown, (1920) 22 BOMLR 368
29
Editors Guild of India v UOI, WRIT PETITION ( CIVIL) 682 OF 2021
30
Suchitra Karthikeyan, Explained: India's 'colonial' sedition law - origins, Govt Abuse & Courts' take on it
Return to frontpage (2022), https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/explained-indias-colonial-sedition-law-
origins-govt-abuse-courts-take-on-it/article65375097.ece (last visited Sep 9, 2022).

~9~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
9) In the case of Kishorelal Wangkhemcha & Kanhaiya Lal Shukla v UOI,31 the petitioners
contended that :
The petitioners raise the question as to whether section 124A of the IPC falls under ‘reasonable
restrictions under Article 19(2). They highlight that in the case of Kedar Nath Singh v State of
Bihar, the Supreme Court held that barring the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), it
was apparent that Section 124A was unconstitutional. As laid down in the State of Madras v.
V.G Row, ascertaining reasonableness requires understanding the nature of the right; purpose
of the restriction imposed; extent and urgency of the issue sought to be remedied; and the
circumstances of the time. The petitioners claim that since Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar,
the material factors have changed, rendering the application of reasonableness to S. 124A
outdated.32
11) It is submitted before this court that another aspect of Article 19 is reasonable restriction.
In the case of S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram,33 it was held that the right to free speech and
expression cannot be curtailed unless there is a threat to society or public order. The threat
should be remote, speculative, or unrealistic. It should be closely related to and directly related
to the expression. In other words, the term should be tightly bound to the action being
considered, much like a "spark in a powder keg." In later cases, the Courts expressed the same
opinion.34

3.2VALIDITY TEST OF SEDITION LAW:

9) The petitioners humbly submit that the 1951 case of Tara Singh Gopi Chand v. The State
by the then-Punjab high court tested the constitutional validity of the sedition legislation for
the first time in independent India. The High Court determined that Section 124A was
unquestionably a restriction on the right to free speech and expression, and therefore
invalidated the provision on the grounds that it violated Article 19 of the Indian Constitution's

31
Kishorelal Wangkhemcha & Kanhaiya Lal Shukla v UOI, WP (Crl) 106/ 2021

32
Writ petition summary (Kishorelal Wangkhemcha & Kanhaiya Lal Shukla), Supreme Court Observer
(2021),https://www.scobserver.in/reports/kishore-wangkhemcha-union-of-india-constitutionality-sedition-writ-
petition-summary-kishorelal-wangkhemcha-kanhaiya-lal-shukla/ (last visited Sep 9, 2022).

33
S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, 1989 SCC (2) 574
34
Nazir Khan & Ors. v. State of Delhi, AIR 2003 SC 4427; see also Union of India & Ors. v. The Motion
Picture Association & Ors., . AIR 1999 SC 2334.

~10~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
basic right to free speech and expression. 35 The Jawaharlal Nehru administration was
influenced by this ruling to establish new justifications for limiting the freedom of speech and
expression.
10) In the above mentioned case the test of validity was applied and this test basically is a test
to determine if a particular law which has been around for ages still holds valid in the current
changed times. The law of sedition that falls under Section 124- A has been around since the
British colonized our country and was initially used as a tool to strike down any sort of
dissenting opinion that Indians tried to express against the British Government or the Crown.
11) The petitioners would humbly want to submit that if we apply the test of validity to Section
124- A in the current scenario it would be very evident that with changed times and with the
booming of social media platforms each and every citizen of the country has different opinions
and just because it doesn’t praise the Government doesn’t mean these voices are hushed down.
Even in the recent case of Shreya Singhal v UOI,36 the Supreme Court held that each and every
person has the right to freedom of speech and expression and that applies online as well. The
law of sedition does not stand valid in today’s time and era and hence needs to be struck down.

3.3 REASONS AS TO WHY INDIA NEEDS TO STRUCK DOWN SECTION 124- A:

12) The Petitioner humbly submits that Section 124- A has to be scraped off of NPC and the
reasoning for it is as follows:

1. Colonial Law: The British Government used this law to suppress rebellious criticism, speech

and views against British rule. But this colonial law is still being used in independent India,

despite having specialized laws to deal with the external and internal threats to sabotage the

nation. Hence in a democratic republic where the sovereignty rests with the citizens such law

has no significance.

2. In Parliament, the then Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, while introducing the Constitution

(First Amendment) Act, 1951, had identified offense of sedition being fundamentally

unconstitutional and remarked that “Now so far as I am concerned that particular Section is

35
Tara Singh Gopi Chand v. The State, 1951 CriLJ 449
36
Shreya Singhal v UOI, 12 SCC 73 ( 2013)

~11~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 highly objectionable and obnoxious and it should have no place both for practical and

historical reasons, if you like, in any body of laws that we might pass. The sooner we get rid

of it the better. We might deal with that matter in other ways, in more limited ways, as every

other country does but that particular thing, as it is, should have no place, because all of us

have had enough experience of it in variety of ways and apart from the logic of the situation,

our urges are against it.”

3. Sedition Law: The law of sedition is more likely to be the last refuge of the political

parties which they use for their own incentives. The party in government exploits

their power against dissent criticizing the functioning of the government or

questioning their policies. It is said so because the law has not yet been amended or

repealed; despite the highest court of India has criticized the law in several instances.

4. The crime of sedition is now dwindling in relevance. An examination of the Indian

Penal Code demonstrates that its other provisions are sufficient to address all threats
to violence and public order, rendering S.124(A) obsolete.37
5. Hence, the petitioners submit that due to all the above stated reasons Section 124- A
needs to be struck down and hopes that Court takes the same view as well.
3.4 LAW COMMISSION ON SEDITION:
13) The Petitioners would further like to submit that the Constituent Assembly resisted
including sedition as a restriction on freedom of speech and expression under the then-Article
13, according to the Law Commission of India's 2018 report. It considered the clause to be a
remnant of colonial rule that had no place in a free India. The IPC's section 124A continued to
apply to the crime.
15) It is further submitted that according to the 2020 National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB)
report, although there were 70 sedition cases filed in 2018, no one was ever found guilty.
Similar to 2018, only two people were found guilty despite 93 cases being brought in 2019.
Similarly, 73 cases were brought in 2020, but no one was found guilty of sedition.
16) It is hence submitted that considering all the arguments put forth above, the petitioner is of
the view that Section 124- A of NPC is unconstitutional in nature and needs to be struck down.

37
Ibid.

~12~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 ISSUE 3
3. WHETHER PICARONES CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (IDENTIFICATION) ACT,
2022 IS IN VIOLATION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER
THE PICARONES CONSTITUTION?
1. The 87th Report of the Law Commission of India on the Identification of Prisoners Act,
1920, states that it is imperative to strike the right balance between two seemingly
conflicting interests in criminal identification- the interest of the state to secure
evidence and the interest of the individual to be protected from the invasion of physical
privacy. 38 The Picarones Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act (hereinafter the
“PCPA”) fails to meet the subtlety of this mandate- with an emphatic bias towards state
interests and the blatant violation of the fundamental rights constitutionally guaranteed
under Part III of the Picaronian Constitution namely under Articles 14, 20 and 21. 39

3.1 The PCPA is in Violation of the Right to Privacy

2. The right to privacy and personal dignity- a basic human right under Article 12 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights Act, 1948- is an intrinsic part of the right to
life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Picaronian Constitution. 40 The PCPA,
by virtue of substantively permitting the collection of biometric data from prisoners
stands prima facie in violation of the aforementioned right as it goes against the
standard of substantive due process required for restraining personal liberty.

3.1.1 The Right to Privacy Extends to the Protection of Data

3. The right of privacy extends to enhancing the autonomy of an individual with regard to
their personal data and in deciding its processing which would lead to an ease in the
flow of personal data.41 There is no provision specified in the PCPA that allows for the
say of the criminal in the processing or use of their personal data. The PCPA therefore,
falls short of guaranteeing the right to privacy as under Article 21.
4. The Justice B.N. Srikrishna Committee recommended that personal data be collected
and used only for ‘clear, specific and lawful purposes.’ Only data necessary for said
purposes is to be collected. No clear purposes are specified for the collection of

38
Law Commission of India, Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, Report No. 87, (August, 1980),
https://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/51-100/report87.pdf (last visited in December, 2011)
39
The Constitution of India, 1950, Part III.
40
The Constitution of India, 1950, Article 21.
41
Central Information Commission, Report on Right to Privacy, 2013, (August, 2013).

~13~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 biometric data under the PCPA other than the vague and ambiguous function of
‘identification.’42
3.1.2 The Right to Privacy Extends to the Freedom from Physical Invasion
5. The Justice B.N. Srikrishna Committee also recommended that biometric information
not be processed or collected without explicit consent.43 Any violation of this
constitutes physical invasion and is a violation of the right to privacy under Article 21
which extends the protection of bodily integrity and dignity to prisoners, under-trials,
detainees and arrested persons in the course of investigation and persons in protection
homes.44
3.1.3 The PCPA is in Violation of the Puttaswamy Judgement
6. The PCPA fails the test of proportionality as laid down in Puttaswamy v. Union of
India. The test for proportionality states that there must be a necessary state purpose
tied to the proportional invasion into a person’s privacy and also requires adequate
safeguards.45 The collection of biometric data for those convicted, arrested or detained
alike without any safeguards for the mere purpose of identification is a grossly
disproportionate violation of privacy. The judgement also lays down all the principles
that govern any law that seeks to restrict the right to privacy. This includes a public
purpose, a rational nexus of the law with that purpose and that this is the least intrusive
way of achieving said purpose. The coerced collection of biometric and other data that
could simply be gathered via questioning for the purpose of identification without the
requirement for any relation to the evidence in a case is most admittedly not the least
intrusive method of criminal identification.

3.2 The PCPA is in Violation of the Right to Self-Incrimination

7. Article 20(3) of the Picaronian Constitution entitles one to the right against self-
incrimination. This right is recognized even under section 161(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (CrPC) This clause requires that every person being questioned
must respond justly to the question being posed. An exception to this clause however,
is that if the answer to any of the questions is self-incriminating, they are not mandated

42
The Committee of Experts on a Data Protection Framework for India, A Free and Fair Digital Economy, (July
27, 2018).
43
Ibid.
44
The Constitution of India, 1950, Article 21.
45
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) vs. Union of India, W.P. (Civil) No 494 of 2012, Supreme Court of India,
August 24, 2017.

~14~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 to answer said questions. 46 In State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad, the Hon’ble
Supreme court illustrated what qualified as ‘tendency to self-incriminate.’ It held that
when there is the probability of actual or imminent accusation, all circumstances taken
into account, then the person is not bound to answer any question posed. 47 The
compulsory collection and processing of biometric data of convicts, detainees and the
arrested violates this right against self-incrimination.

3.3 The PCPA is in Violation of the Right to Equality

8. The concept of equality is dynamic and cannot be confined, cabined or cribbed. 48 The
right to equality as guaranteed under Article 14 of the Picaronian Constitution extends
to requiring a law to be fair and reasonable. The following provision of the Act abound
in arbitrariness in a blatant violation of Article 14:
9. That data can be collected from not just those convicted but also those detained (such
as in the case at hand) and arrested. This does not pass the test of reasonable
classification which is an exception to Article 14 as there is no nexus between the
purpose sought to be achieved i.e. identification of criminals and the prevention and
investigation of crime and the classification.
10. That there is a dilution of safeguards by authorising lower levels of officials such as the
police to collect the data. Lowering the rank of the executive authorized to collect
sensitive biometric information likens the chances of misuse of power and manifest
arbitrariness.
11. There is no clear provision for the deletion of sensitive data after use.

3.4 The PCPA Violates International Law and Agreements

12. Picarones is signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(ICESCR) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)- all of which the
impugned Act is at odds with.
13. Article 7 of the ICCPR states that “no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his

46
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, s. 161(2).
47
1961 AIR 1808, 1962 SCR (3) 10.
48
E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1974 SC 555.

~15~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.” The act of coercing biometric
data from those detained by the police is ostensibly in violation of this provision.
14. Article 2(2) of the ICESCR guarantees social, economic and cultural rights to every
citizen regardless of any basis of discrimination implying that even prisoners/detainees
are entitled to these rights. To take away their rights of privacy and bodily autonomy
among others contradicts this covenant. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Challa
Ramkrishna Reddy, the Supreme Court held that “even when a person is in jail, he
continues to enjoy all his fundamental rights including the right to life guaranteed under
the Constitution.”49
15. It is established criminal law jurisprudence that one is innocent until proven guilty. This
is reflected in Article 11 of the UDHR and numerous Indian cases such as Rajesh Prasad
v. State of Bihar as well. To club the convicted with those detained and arrested for the
purpose of identification is therefore not a reasonable classification and is manifestly
arbitrary.

49
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Challa Ramkrishna Reddy

~16~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 ISSUE 4

4) WHETHER SECTION 8 OF THE PICARONES CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

(IDENIFICATION) ACT, 2022 SUFFERS FROM EXCESSIVE DELEGATION AND IS
THUS UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

It is humbly submitted to the Hon’ble Court that Section 8 delegates power to the Central
Government and the State Governments to frame rules regarding issues that are the subject
matter of legislative policy without providing any guidance or framework on rule-making to
the Executive, hence falling under the ambit of excessive delegation since the legislature has
clearly abdicated its legislative function vide this Section. The arguments justifying the same
are three fold: firstly, how the forceful parting of ‘measurements’ under Section 8 is violative
of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. Secondly, how the section
is in clear violation of the right to assemble peaceably as well as expression under Article 19
while also shedding light on the sheer lack of any interconnection between the object and
proportionality sought. lastly, how the provision itself is so loosely worded as to not justify and
demarcate essential terminology covering the persons in its ambit which creates abundant room
for revictimisation of the innocent in the clutches of faulty criminal justice system trapped in
the clutches of the contours of excessive delegation.

4.1

1. It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that the grant of a legal sanction to
the Police for the forcible collection, storing, preservation of measurements and
sharing,
dissemination, destruction and disposal of records witnessed in the form of finger
impressions, palm prints impressions, footprint impressions, photographs, iris and
retina scans, and physical and biological samples behavioural attributes including
signatures, handwriting or any other examination referred to under Sections 53 50 and
53-A51 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 are flagrantly violative of the right to
'bodily integrity and dignity' under Article 21 by allowing excessive, coercive, and
arbitrary intrusion into the dignity of Indiciduals by the Central/State authorities.

50
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S. 53.
51
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S. 53-A.

~17~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 2. By permitting intrusion in the physical autonomy of the person, the Section has made
the refusal or resistance to give measurements as a criminal offence. It said that the
fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 provides a shield to
protect 'bodily integrity and dignity', and such protection extends to prisoners,
undertrials, arrested persons, detainees in the course of investigation and persons in
protection homes.
3. Forcing an individual to part with his 'measurements' under the provisions of the Act
violates the standard of 'substantive due process' which is required for restraining
personal liberty. The act allows a significant intrusion into dignity of an individual who
may be called in for questioning, or who is involved in the most petty of offences. not
only does the section go against the principle 'presumption of innocence' but also reeks
of reverse onus and betrays a proclivity to treat a person as a suspect and not as a right-
bearing individual. This is a clear breach of the Supreme Court's ruling in Selvi v. State
of Karnataka52, which stated that Article 20(3) of the Constitution prohibits the
compulsory "conveyance of intimate knowledge that is important to the facts in
question."53

4.2

4. It is most respectfully submitted that, Article 19 (1) (B)54 of the Constitution of India
1949, lay down that ‘All citizens shall have right to assemble peaceably and without
arms. That means citizens of India have been given freedom to assemble and organize
a public gathering or even processions on their own will. In order to participate in public
protest, the right to freedom of speech & expression 55, association56 and peaceful
assembly are necessary57. In the case of Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary,
Union of India & Ors28 & Jawaharlal Nehru University V. Geeta Kumari, President
Jnusu & Ors58 the Supreme Court had stated, “Citizens have a fundamental right to
assembly and peaceful protest which cannot be taken away by an arbitrary executive or
legislative action.”

52
(2010) 7 SCC 263.
53
(2010) 7 SCC 263
54
(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms
55
(a) to freedom of speech and expression
56
(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms
57
(c) to form associations or unions
58
Cont.Cas(C) 110/2018

~18~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 5. It is further submitted that there exists no reasonable nexus between the act and the
desired objective. The reasonable Nexus between stringency of the provision and the
purpose sought to be achieved must exist.59 The arrest as well as the forceful eviction
of Xeno along with 20 other university students seeking for a peaceful protest was
absolutely disproportionate to the purpose sought to be achieved. The right to protest,
no doubt is available to all the citizens in a democratic country like ours. Unfortunately,
this right to protest has been continuously misunderstood as a right to inconvenience
the general public. 60
6. It is also to be highlighted that the quick and unjustified transpiration of peaceful
protests to rebel and students dissent to being anti-national and terrorists is making a
claim statement without any evidence and hence wholly unjustified especially when
such arrest is not "of such a nature and alleged to have been committed under such
circumstances that there are reasonable grounds for believing that an examination of
such persons will afford evidence as to commission" . Hence the arrest as well as the
forceful eviction of Xeno along with 20 other university students seeking for a peaceful
protest was absolutely disproportionate to the purpose sought to be achieved since they
were in intelligible exercise of their rights of making a choice, free & general discussion
of public matters.61

4.3

7. It is humbly submitted that apart from the structural incapacity to collect and maintain
the record of measurements making it an issue of feasibility, the Act does not define
the process and definite framework as to how the measurements taken would be used
for analysis and further utilised in a criminal investigation. The word “analysis” used
in the context of measurement is vague and undefined which is an issue of concern
because there is no certainty in regard to how much these measurements collected can
be analysed and further what all data can be generated through the analysis of such
measurements.
8. The 2022 Act further allows the Magistrate to direct “any person” to give
measurements if it is “expedient” to do so. The wide definition of ‘measurements’ also

59
District Registrar and Collector v. Canara bank, AIR 2005 SC 186
60
3 Asha Ranjan vs. State of Bihar & Ors 2017 (4) SCC 397, The Government of Tamil Nadu vs P.Ayyakannu
61
Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India 1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621

~19~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 raises vital concerns regarding personal autonomy. Values of autonomy and personal
integrity form a component of ‘expression’ protected under Article 19(1)(a) and
manifest in the form of independent decision-making and control over dissemination of
personal information. An arrested or detained person has the right to turn down a scan
of their iris and retina, as it directly interferes with their bodily autonomy and gathers
personal information. Personal autonomy can only be restricted by a legislation which
is proportionate and informed with due process.
9. This loose wording is inclusive of measurements to be taken of all convicts, arrested
persons, as well as persons detained under any preventive detention law irrespective of
any quantum of punishment awarded. Not only is this devoid of the procedural
safeguards62 of just the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 but also leads to operational
difficulty63 by extending to “any law” without guidelines on what is considered
“expedient” or what are the broad grounds under which such extensive power can be
exercised. Thus, individuals distantly related to the suspect could be subject to
genealogical analysis; measurements could be undertaken even when involvement in
the offence has not been clearly established and can be further enforced in cases
involving trivial offences or cases filed through the abuse of police powers.
10. It is further argued that the current system of criminal investigation, which does not
guarantee 100% accuracy for biometrics technology64 due to biological patterns that are
constantly changing, results in a phenomenal failure rate when viewed from the
perspective of the entire population and could lead to the unjustified victimisation of
innocent people.
4.4
Considering that the legislature cannot delegate its essential legislative function and should
include some limitations on the powers granted to the Executive or at least lay down the broad
perimeter and circumstances under which it can be exercised, Section 8 of the act falls under
the contours of excessive delegation of power at every step of the process.

62
Ananth v. State of Andhra Pradesh
63
Jitendra v. State of Maharashtra 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 8600.

64
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2018) 1 SCC 809.

~20~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 PRAYER

Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, authorities cited and arguments advanced, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of Picarones be pleased to declare:

1. That the petitioner has sufficient locus standi to file this petition
2. That section 124-A of the National Penal Code of Picarones is null and void by virtue
of being constitutionally invalid
3. That the Picarones Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 is violative of the
fundamental rights guaranteed under the Picaronian Constitution
4. That section 8 of the Picarones Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 suffers
from excessive delegation and is thus unconstitutional

AND/OR

Pass any other order it may deem fit, in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.

Counsel on behalf of petitioner

Sd/-

~21~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER