MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

TEAM CODE: CDJMTC-02

SATHYABAMA, 2ND All India Virtual Moot Court Competition 2021

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF

SANDANA

IN THE MATTER OF

Union of Sandana RESPONDENT

V.

NGO & Ors. PETITIONERS

Upon Submission to the Hon’ble Moot Court

Memorial on the behalf of (Respondant)

i
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 List of Abbreviations……………………………………………………………….iii
 Index of Authorities…………………………………………………………….…..iv-v
 Statement of Jurisdiction……………………………………………………….…......vi
 Statement of Facts……………………………………………………….…………...vii
 Statement of Issues…………………………………………………….………….....viii
 Summary of Arguments……………………………………………...…...……..........ix
 Argument Advanced……………………………………………………..............x-xx
 Prayer………………………………………………………………………..............xxi

ii
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

1. Hon’ble…………………........……………………………………..……[Honourable]
2. Sec………………………..............………………………………..…………[Section]
3. J……………………………...............………………………..………………[Justice]
4. v. …………………………….……..............…………………………………[Versus]
5. Acc………………………............………………………..………………..[According]
6. &……………………………................………………………...…………....…[And]
7. Art. .....................................................................................................................[Article]
8. Govt. ........................................................................................................[ Government]
9. UN..........................................................................................................[United Nation]
10. AIR..................................................................................................[ All India Reporter]
11. Cr.PC................................................................................[Code of Criminal Procedure]
12. Anr. ..................................................................................................................[Another]
13. HC...............................................................................................................[High Court]
14. CJ..............................................................................................................[Chief Justice]
15. UT.........................................................................................................[Union Territory]
16. PIL.........................................................................................[Public Interest Litigation]
17. IOA.........................................................................................[Instrument of Accession]
18. UNSC..........................................................................[United Nation Security Council]
19. NGO..........................................................................[Non Governmental Organisation]

iii
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

TABLE OF CASES

1. Prem Nath Kaul V. State of Jammu and Kashmir (AIR 1959 SC 749)
2. Sampat Prakash v. J & K (AIR 1970 SC 1118)
3. State Bank of India v. Santosh Gupta (16 DECEMBER 2016)
4. Dr. Charu Wali Khanna v. UOI
5. Puranlal Lakhanpal v. The President of India (30 March 1961)
6. The Fertilizer Corporation v. UOI (AIR 1981 SC 344)
7. Bhushan Power & Steel Limited v. Rajesh Verma ( 2014 5 SCC 551)
8. Gaurav Sureshbhai Vyas v. State of Gujarat ( 15 Sep, 2015)
9. Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1961 SC 884)
10. Arunachala v. State of Madras (AIR 1950 SC 300)
11. Mohd. Ajmal Mohd. Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra (3RD Oct. 2012)
12. State Of Bihar v. Shailabala Devi (AIR 1952 SC 329)
13. Re Delhi Law’s 1921 (1951 AIR 332)
14. NCT of Delhi V. UOI (CA NO. 2357 of 2017)

BOOKS
The Constitution of India by Narender Kumar
Indian Constitutional Law, M.P Jain
Criminal Procedure, R V Kelkar
Sarkar, The Code of Criminal Procedure
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Code of Criminal Procedure ( 23rd Edition)

STATUTES

The Constitution Of India(One Hundred and Fourth Amendment) Act, 2019

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

The Telegraph Act, 1885

The Information Technology Act, 2008

iv
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

WEBSITE REFERRED:-

Indiankanoon

Livelaw

Bar and bench

SCC Online

Legally India

Law Times Journal

v
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The respondent humbly submits to the jurisdiction of the the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
Sandana under Art. 32 of the Constitution of Sandana to issue an appropriate writ, order or
direction:-

“32. Remedied 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.

vi
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Sandana and Mondana are two neighbouring nations and during the rule of Byomkish
Empire, Mondana used to be a part of Sandana. On 15th August 1947, Mondana got separated
after the Independence from the Byomkish and Sandana comprised of 499 princely states
after the Independence. 499 out of 500 princely states over Mondana due to religious and
linguistic similarities after signing Instrument of Accession.

The one state which was reluctant to choose either of Dominion was the State of Chilliy
known for its orchards and beauty. The Maharaja of Chilliy signed a Standstill Agreement
with both the Dominion after stating that he does need year in order to decide the future of
Chilliy. But in Oct 1947, Mondana tried to Sabotage the agreement by sending their invaders
in Chilliy in order to capture it. Maharaja had no option so he asked the Govt. of Sandana to
help him with situation. Sandana stated the terms that Chilliy has to sign IOA after this
situation ends. Maharaja agreed to it and went to the war with. The IOA stated that Govt. Of
Sandana will limit their powers to just 3 subject matters and that will be – defence,
Communication and Foreign Affairs, rest Chilliy has the freedom to determine their own
affair. As the war went on, the provisional Govt. Of both dominion took this dispute to UN
for a peaceful settlement, the UN passed a resolution UNSC-47 stating that Mondana should
withdraw from Chilliy.

In 1947, separate constitution for Chilliy was drafted along with separate flag and special
provisions were granted to it. Things changed political parties tried to change the special
status and tried to take way the Const. And provisions, Few NGO’s were also established and
in 2019, President’s Rule was imposed. Chilliy Reorganisation Act, 2019 was introduced
converted the State of Chilliy into 2 UT- Chutney /Molgapudi and Thakali. Chilliy’s
Constitution was done away. New Domicile Policy was introduced for UT of Chutney and
Molgapudi. Internet were Snapped. After that Central Govt. restored 2G which was
insufficient. People protested against it. Lockdown was imposed on 25th March, 2020 due to
pandemic. Absence of Internet services made it difficult for the people of Chilliy due to
which students and patients suffered. People filed PIL before SC challenging that FR was
violated.CJI of SC directed Constituent bench of 5 judges to hear all matters related to
constitutionality of bifurcation of Chilliy and domicile policy.

vii
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

Following are the issues raised before this Hon’ble Court for its kind consideration and
adjudication

ISSUE 1

Whether the convension of the State of Chilliy into 2 seperate Union Territories was
constitutionally valid?

ISSUE 2

Whether the Central Government had the power to enact a new domicile policy for the
Union Territory of Chutney & Molgapudi? Whether this policy is constitutionally
valid?

ISSUE 3

Whether the petitioners who are being represented before the Court for justice for
Chilliy are entitled to claim compensation for the proclaimation violation of their
fundamental rights?

viii
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether the conversion of the State of Chilliy into 2 seperate Union Territories was
constitutionally valid?

The Conversion of the State of Chilliy into 2 separate Union Territories was valid as it was a
big move by the Government of Sandana. With the growing concerns of terrorism, the PM of
Sandana bifurcated the State of Chilliy into two Union Territory of Molgapudi & Chutney
and Union Territory of Thakali, in order to control the war from the other countries. It was a
necessary step as the residents of Chilliy didn’t ever get to enjoy the rights like other citizens
of the country. This will not just give them to enjoy the rights but also safeguard them from
cross border terrorism. Most importantly they’ll be officially considered as the residents of
the nation.

2. Whether the Central Government had the power to enact a new domicile policy for
the Union Territory of Chutney & Molgapudi? Whether this policy is constitutionally
valid?

The Central Govt. has the power to enact a new domicile policy for UT of Chutney and
Molgapudi. The policy is also constitutionally valid as any Regulation made by the President
which amends or repeals any applicable law shall have the same force as an Act of Parliament

3. Whether the petitioners who are being represented before the Court by justice for
Chilliy are entitled to claim compensation for the proclaimed violation of their
fundamental rights?

The petition presented before this Hon’ble Supreme Court of Sandana by petitioner is not
maintainable as to claim any compensation. It is requiste that there must be a violation of
fundamental rights of case approach to the SC. Hereby no violation of fundamental rights has
been done and for the security concerns the state has the power to shutdown internet .

ix
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

________________________________ISSUE 1___________________________________

Whether the conversion of the State of Chilliy into 2 seperate Union Territories was
constitutionally valid

The new system in Chutney, Molgapudi and Thakali is not meant to draw a line on the
land( to draw a boundary) but to build a strong link of trust”, The Prime Minister said.

In a historic and decisive move by the Shri Baltendra Todi government on Monday, moved a
proposal to revoke the Special Status of the state of Chilliy and tabled a bill (Chilliy
Reorganisation Act 2019) to bifurcate the State of Chilliy into two Union Territories —
Union Territory of Chutney & Molgapudi and Union Territory of Thakali. Tabling the bill in
the House, Union Home Minister of Sandana announced that while UT of Chutney and
Molgapudi will have domicile policy and the other UT of Thakali will not have any kind of
domicile policy. The government also moved a resolution that all clauses of the Constitution,
which grants special status to the state of Chilliy, will not be applicable in the state. He said
that this will come into effect when the President gives assent and the Central government
notifies it.

The Chilliy Reorganisation Bill have to clear the Rajya Sabha hurdles before a formal order
is issued to divide the state into two Union Territories.

In a country like Sandana, a Union Territory is not like a state which has its own elected
government. It is a kind of administrative division which is directly governed by the central
government.

The government maintained that the Bill was ‘correcting a historical mistake’.

The conversion of Chilliy into 2 Union Territories was constitutionally valid as this was
in accordance with the government’s August 5 announcement withdrawing the state’s
special status under Article 370 and Bifurcating the states into Union Territories. As per
the Article 370, the Parliament needs the state government’s consensus for applying all
other laws except for defence, foreign affairs and communication. Under Article 370,
x
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

the Centre has no power to declare financial emergency. It could only declare an
emergency in the state only in the case of war and external aggression. Hence the
government cannot declare an emergency on grounds of internal disturbance or
imminent danger unless it’s made at the request of the State government and when it
comes to the situation of Cross border terrorism, Chilliy is the most dangerous State of
all and in order to control the situation of that State, the Bifurcation of the State into
two Union Territories was a necessary step.

Residents lived under a separate set of laws for years related to citizenship, ownership of
property and fundamental rights as compared to the rest of the Country which made them
believe that they were different from the rest of the Nation and Somehow that always laid a
risk on the citizens of the Chilliy.

Division of the State was important in order to control the Security of the State with the
proper division of all the functioning. When there’s so much volatility particularly from the
point of security, with this bifurcation, these functions will report directly to the Centre and
as far as the alignment of three most concerned priorities i.e. Police, Paramilitary forces and
army are concerned, there’ll be absolute cohesive action in terms of Control to any Security
Situation.

The government considered this decision because it was necessary to mark the beginning of
peace and prosperity in that region, to shut down the gateway of terrorism and now as the
move has been taken in the words of the Central Government, Two Union Territories have
been completely integrated and united with the mainstream.

Most importantly, it was the best decision to unite the State with the Country by bringing in
two Union Territories and giving them same priority as the rest of them. This was a necessary
step for the country in order to bring peace and stop terrorism.

Here are the some points about The conversion of Chilliy into two union territories:

1. Sandana will now have one state less and two union territories more as Presidential
proclamation of August 6 giving assent to the Bifurcation of Chilliy into two Union
Territories comes into effect.

xi
 MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

2. The total number of states in the country will now be 28, while the total UTs will go up to
nine.

3. The UT of Chutney & Molgapudi will have a domicile policy while UT of Thakali will be
a UT without domicile policy.

4. The Constitution of Chilliy and the special set of rules will cease to exist.

5. The Centre will be in direct control of the police and law and order in Molgapudi , Chutney
and Thakali from Thursday when it becomes a UT. Land will be under the purview of the
elected government there.

6. The new UTs come into existence on National Unity Day to mark the birth anniversary of
Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel who was a freedom fighter.

Prem nath kaul v. State of jammu and kashmir1

 Challenge to Big Landed Estates Abolition Act, 1950 on the ground that it was
unconstitutionally enacted by Maharaja Yuvraj Karan Singh (Hari Singh’s son)
 The Supreme Court upheld the Act
 On Article 370, the court held that the Maharaja’s plenary legislative powers were not limited
by Article 370

Sampat Prakash v. J& K AIR 1970 SC 1118

 Challenge to 1959 and 1964 Presidential Orders made under Article 370(1) that extended the
operational period of Article 35(c). Article 35(c) made preventive detention legislation
immune in J&K from fundamental rights claims.
 The petitioner made two primary arguments:
o Article 370 ceased to exist after J&K Constituent Assembly dissolves in 1957
o Even if Article 370 persists, President’s power to amend orders under Article 370(1) ceased
after the J&K Constitution came into force
 The Supreme Court upheld the Presidential Orders:
o Article 370 will only dissolve upon the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly under
Article 370(3)

1
AIR 1959 SC 749

xii
 MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

o The power to issue orders includes the power to add, amend, vary or rescind them because
the General Clauses Act, 1897 applies to the Constitution.2

SBI V. Santosh Gupta3

 Appeal to J&K High Court judgment that ruled that provisions of the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 do not
apply to J&K
 The Supreme Court overturned the judgment, holding that Parliament had legislative
competence to enact the provisions because India’s Constitution is superior to J&K’s.
 The court held that Article 370(1)(b) does not limit Parliament’s power because the
Constitution of India is applicable to J&K via the 1954 Presidential Order.

Dr. Charu Wali Khanna v. UOI (pending)

 Challenge to permanent residency laws in J&K, i.e. validity of Article 35A

 The petitioners raise two primary grounds:
o Extra-constitutional: introduced illegitimately via 1954 Presidential Order
o Discriminates against women: empowers Article 6 of the J&K Constitution.

A five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in its March 1961 judgment in Puranlal
Lakhanpal vs The President of India4 discussed the President's powers under Article 370(1)
to "modify" the Constitution.

Though the Court observed that the President may modify an existing provision in the
Constitution in consequence of the power under Article 370, the judgment is silent as to
whether the President can, without the Parliament's knowledge, introduce a new Article or
amend an Article which will dilute Article 370. The Order will be challenged soon and the
interpretation given by the Supreme Court shall prevail finally.

2
AIR 1970 SC 1118
3
Decided on 16th December 2016
4
Decided on 30 March, 1961
xiii
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

_________________________________ISSUE 2________________________________

Whether the Central Government had the power to enact a new domicile policy for the
Union Territory of Chutney & Molgapudi? Whether this policy is constitutionally
valid?

It is respectfully submitted by the respondent that It is humbly contended by the petitioner

that after 5 days of nationwide lockdown to counter the Covid 9 pandemic , the Home
Minster announced a new domcile policy. The government issued new domicile rules the
abrogation of Article 370 and bifurcation of the erstwhile semi-autonomous state
downgrading into two UT.

The new domicile rules, enacted by the Ministry of Home Affairs through an executive
order in March, reserves government jobs in Chutney and Molgapudi for its ‘domiciles’,
which also includes non-locals living in the UT for 15 years and children of Central
government employees serving here for 10 years, which same is not given to residence of
Thakali as no such New Domicile policy was introduced there.

Through the Adaptation Order notified by the Union Home Ministry, State laws applicable
to the Union Territories of Chutney and Molgapudi and Thakali have been amended or
repealed. The State legislation which has been amended to give effect to the new domi cile
policy is the Chutney and Molgapudi Civil Services (Decentralization and Recruitment)
Act, 2010. The Adaptation Order has inserted Section 3A to this Act, which prescribes
new eligibility criteria to be deemed as a ‘domicile resident’ of Chutney & Mol gapudi.
The new eligibility criteria inter alia includes requirements such as

(i) the person should have resided in Chutney & Molgapudi or Thakali for a
mimumum period of 15 years; or
(ii) ii) the person should have studied for a period of seven years and appeared for
Class 10th/12th Board Examinations through an educational institution located
in the Union Territory.

Before the reorganisation of Chutney and Molgapudi, non-locals were not eligible for jobs
in the erstwhile state due to special constitutional safeguards incorporated in the
constitution of Sandana through a presidential order of 1954.

xiv
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

To address this issue, it is significant to note that as per the Reorganization Act, the Union
Territory of Thakali does not have a Legislature, and is to be administered by a Lieutenant
Governor, acting on behalf of the President. On the other hand, the Union Territory of
Chutney and Molgapudi follows a model similar to Pondicherry and Delhi, and is
envisaged to have a Legislature and a Council of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister.
As the Union Territory of Thakali does not have a Legislature and is to be administered
solely through the Lieutenant Governor, the Adaption Order may be justified by referring
to Section 58 of the Reorganization Act, and by invoking Article 240 of the Indian
Constitution.

Section 58 makes Article 239 and Article 240 applicable to the Union Territory of Thakali.
Article 240 accordingly states that for Union Territories that fall within the ambit of
Article 239 (such as Pondicherry and now Thakali), any Regulation made by the President
which amends or repeals any applicable law shall have the same force as an Act of
Parliament. Hence, with respect to the Union Territory of Thakali, the Adaption Order can
be considered as a Regulation made by the President under Article 240, and can be
justified on these grounds. However, with respect to the Union Territory of Chutney and
Molgapudi, the position is significantly different.

Unlike Thakali, Article 240 is inapplicable to the Union Territory of Chutney and
Molgapudi. This is by virtue of Section 13 of the Reorganization Act and the proviso to
clause (1) of Article 240. Section 13 states that the provisions contained in Article 239A of
the Constitution as applicable to Pondicherry shall also be applicable to the Union
Territory of Chutney & Molgapudi. Furthermore, the proviso to Article 240(1) states that
if a body is created under Article 239A to function as the Legislature for the Union
Territories enlisted under Article 239A (which now includes Pondicherry and Chutney and
Molgapudi), then until the first meeting of the legislature, the President may make
Regulations for that Union Territory.

This may be the justification in a possible constitutional challenge, as the Union Territory
of Chutney and Molgapudi is currently under President’s rule, and no Legislative
Assembly has been created after the passage of the Reorganization Act. It may contend
that even if the Adaptation Order is ultra vires the ambit of Section 96 of the
Reorganization Act, it is saved by Article 239A and the proviso to Article 240(1). Another
justification that the Central Government may give is that following the 5th August
xv
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

statutory resolution, the concept of ‘permanent resident’ as given in the Chutney &
Molgapudi Constitution has ceased to exist.

This is because following the 5th August statutory resolution, the Chilliy Constitution
(which defined a permanent resident under Article 6) has been done away with. Along
with this, even Article 35A of the Indian Constitution, which empowered the State
Legislature to define the “permanent residents” of the erstwhile State, was abrogated. This
abrogation of the concept of “permanent resident”, it can be argued, has led to a vacuum in
the domicile eligibility criteria applicable in the newly constituted Union Territories.

Hence it can be contended that according to 239 if any regulation has been made by the
President which can be regarded as State Govt. has made it.

The respondent humbly submit so the Hon’ble Court that the Central Government has
power to enact new domcile policy and it is constitutionally valid.

_______________________________ISSUE 3____________________________

Whether the petitioners who are being represented before the Court by justice for
Chilliy are entitled to claim compensation for the proclaimation violation of their
fundamental rights?

xvi
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

It is hereby submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Sandana, that in the instant case
there is no violation of fundamental rights arises. And in order to attract Art. 325 the violation
of a fundamental righs is the sine qua non of the exercise of the rights. 6 And Hon’ble Court
clearly held that violation of fundamental rights cannot be shown, then the writ petition
cannot be maintainable.7

It is respectfully submitted that the present case involves no violation of fundamental rights
enshrined under Part 3 of the Constitution. The invocation and the power to issue order in
urgent cases of nuisance of apprehended danger8 existed with district Magistrate. Henceforth,
in their opinion issue direction to prevent, or tends to prevent, obstruction.

Also in august 2017, the union government promulgated Temporary suspension of Telecom
Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) rules, 2017 where the government is allowed to
sanction an internet shutdown in the case of a public emergency.

The orders under consideration are subject to the satisfaction of the Government or the
authority concerned as to the existence of a “public emergency.” A “public emergency” has
been held to mean that which raises problems concerning the interest of the public safety, the
sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign
states or public order or the prevention of incitement to the commission of an offence.

Also prior to 2017, any measure restricting the internet generally or even shutting down the
internet was passed under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C). The position has
changed since 2017, with the passage of the Suspension Rules under Section 7 of the
Telegraph Act. The Rules state that an order passed there under should be a reasoned order.

As the Central Government opposed the grant of internet services, stating that the security
situation in Chilliy (which affected by cross broder terrorism) would be affected if access to
internet was provided.9 As per the situations prevailing it was necessary and reasoned order
for the tranquillity of the people of Chilliy.

Even after that the Review Committee was set up to decided whether the internet access
could be granted than the Central Govt. restored internet services at 2G data speed.

5
Constitution Art.32, “Right to Constitutional Remedies”.
6
The Fertilizer Corporation Case, AIR 1981 SC 344.
7
Bhushan Power &steel Limited v. Rajesh Verma, (2014) 5 SCC 551.
8
CrPC sec. 144.
9
Moot Preposition Para 11
xvii
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

While several activist filed petition in SC , demanding the restoration of 4G services the SC
Constituted a Committee of bureaucrats to examine the matter, and determine whether 4G
mobile services must be restored but the committee refused, stating the precarious security of
Chilliy must be taken into consideration.10

But in another instance case- A Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the order of the
Gujarat High Court in the case of Gaurav Sureshbhai Vyas v. State of Gujarat 11 , arguing
that the state lacked authority to block Internet access under Section 144 and requested
that the Court issue a writ to permanently restrain the state's ability to block access to the
Internet as it violated Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution but the use of
Section 144 for internet shut downs was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 12th
February, 2016. The Court found the application of Internet shutdown in the
circumstances to be justified. It gave deference to the decision of the authorities in
finding the most appropriate mechanism for controlling the situation. Additionally, the
Court reasoned that even if social media websites are not required to be blocked
independently or completely, but if it is a “possibly … more effective approach found by
the competent authority” 12 then it may be justified.

While upholding the power of the state governments to restrict access to internet, Chief
Justice T.S Thakur remarked that "It becomes very necessary sometimes for law and
order."

The Central Govt. rules to legislate the authority required and procedures to be followed
to “temprorarily suspend telecom services” in case of “public emergency or public
safety”. Issued by the minister of Communications under the Indian Telegraph Act,
1885, these rules were codified as the temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public
Emergency or Public Safety) rules, 2017.

These rules are confers the status of competetent authority on the Union home secretary
when the order is issued by the government of India. For a state government, the power
lies with the state home secretary. In “unavoidable circumstances”, though, orders could
be issued by an officer “not below the rank of a joint secretary to the government of

10
Moot Preposition Para 15
11
Decided on 15th September 2015
12
Para 11, Gaurav Sureshbhai Vyas v. State of Gujrat
xviii
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

India, who has been duly authorised by the Union home secretary or the state home
secretary”.

Meanwhile , in several states internet was shut down due to security concerns and
maintain peace. In West Bengal, mobile internet and broadband services were
compelety terminated from March 28 to march 30 mid day. The order, which covered
local cable television news channels, were passed by the district magistrate under Sec.
144 of CrPC to maintain public order.

The DM in his order, reasoned that there could be “great risk and danger to human life
and property if the public continues to avail the normal broadband internet services”.
The order stated:

“While the Constitution of India guarantees the freedom of expression of Indian citizens
but at the same time it allows for reasonable restrictions on the same.

“And whereas no restriction is being imposed on voice calls and SMS and on
newspapers, hence communication and dissemination of knowledge and information is
not stopped in any way.” 13

Paschim Bardhaman district magistrate Shashank Sethi said his orders did not contravene
the Centre’s rules mandating the procedure to temporarily disconnect internet services.
“It was done with the approval of the home secretary and later it was extended by the
home secretary himself,” said Sethi.

The clauses (2) to (6) of Art. 19 empowering the state to impose restrictions on the
freedoms guaranteed under Art. 19 (1). It empowers state to take preventive measures
before the actual occurances of the event endangering the exercise of the freedom. The
state may, therefore, restrict an act or utterance, which , not only produces the mischief
aimed at, but also those which have a tendency to cause that effect. 14. The xpression ‘
inth interest of” also requires that the limitation imposed should be one which have
approximate or reasonable nexus with mischief sought to be continued. 15

13
Government of West Bengal office of the District Magistrate Paschim Bardhaman, Asansol (Confidential
Order issued under Section144 CrPC)
14
Babulal Parate v. state of Maharastra, AIR1961 SC 884.
15
Arunachala v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 300.
xix
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

The apex Court in Mohd. Ajmal Mohd. Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra 16 held that
the coverage of he Mumbai terror attack by the Mainstream Electronic Media had done
much harm to the argument that any regulatory mechanism for the media must only cone
from within, it is noticed that Indian TV channels had shown live,........ which made the
security forces enagaged in flushing out terrorists . this reckless covarge of the terrorist
attack by the channels thus made the security forces not only exceeding difficult but also
dangerous and risky.

The security of State Refers to serious and aggravated forms of public disorder, such as ,
rebellion, waging war against the state, insurrection. 17

In another instance case of Babulal Parate v. State of Maharastra18 Section 144 of Cr.PC ,
which empowers the Magistrate to direct a person , to abstrain from certain acts, has been
upheld, to be imposing restrictions in the interest of public order.

Hereby, it is humbly submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to claim compensation .

PRAYER

16
3rd October, 2012
17
State of Bihar v. Shailabala Devi, AIR 1952 SC 329
18
AIR 1961 SC 884
xx
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

Therefore, in the light of facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited,
it is most humbly prayed before the Hon’ble Court be pleased to adjudge and declare

1. The conversion of State of Chilliy into 2 UT is constitutionally valid.

2. The central Govt. has the powr to enact a new domicile policy for UT of
Chutney and Molgapudi. The new policy was unconstitutionally valid .
3. The petitioner are not entitled to claim compensation .

OR

May pass any other order in favor of respondent which this court may deem fit and proper in
the circumstances of the case.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted

Counsels for Respondent

xxi