9th AUMP INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Index of Authorities………………………………………………………………………..

List of Abbreviations…...………………………………………………………………….

Statement of Jurisdiction………………………………………………………………….

Statement of Facts…………………………………………………………………………

Statement of Issues………………………………………………………………………...

Summary of Arguments…………………………………………………………………..

Arguments advanced……………………………………………………………………...

Prayer……………………………………………………………………………………...

1
 9th AUMP INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

RELEVANT CASE LAWS

S.No. NAME OF THE CASES AND CITATIONS Page no.

1. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal [(1997) 1 SCC 416]

2. Prakash Kadam v. Ramprasad Gupta [(2011) 6 SCC
189]
3. People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of
India [(1997) 3 SCC 433]
4. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India [(2020) 3
SCC 637]
5. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India [(2015) 5 SCC 1]
6. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India [(2017) 10 SCC 1]
7. Mohammed Faruk v. State of Madhya
Pradesh [(1969) 1 SCC 853]
8. Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of
Kerala [(2018) 10 SCC 469]
9. Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association
v. Union of India [(2016) 14 SCC 536]
10. Rubabuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat [(2010) 2 SCC
200]
11. Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab [(2015) 9 SCC 199]
12. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [(1987) 1 SCC 395]
13. kesvananda Bharati v. State of Kerala [(1973) 4 SCC
225]
14. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India [(1980) 3
SCC 625]
15. Nandini Sundar v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2011) 7
SCC 287]

2
 9th AUMP INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

16. Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan [(1997) 6 SCC 241]

17. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [(1978) 1 SCC 248]
18. Puttaswamy v. Union of India [(2017)10 SCC1]
19. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar [(1979) 3 SCC
227]
20. Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir [(1985) 4
SCC 677]
21. Karam Singh v. State of Haryana [(2004) 4 SCC 245]
22. Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi
[(2009) 111 DRJ 1]
23. Hindustan Times Ltd. v. Union of India [(1998) 3 SCC
1]
24. M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra [(1954) 1 SCR 1077]
25. State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shinde [(2000) 2 SCC
746]
26. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain [(1975) 4 SCC
428]:
27. S. R. Tiwari v. District Board, Agra [(1964) 1 SCR
196]
28. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras [(1950) SCR 88]
29. Madhya Pradesh v. K. K. Mishra [(2000) 2 SCC 397]
30. Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana [(1988) 4 SCC 534]
31. State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of
Democratic Rights [(2010) 3 SCC 571]
32. Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum [(1985) 2
SCC 556]
33. P.D. Gupta v. Ram Murti [(2008) 5 SCC 33]
34. State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh [(1994) 3 SCC 299]
35. Sankaranarayanan v. State of Kerala [(2009) 1 SCC
60]
36. Fazal Ali v. State of Assam [(2007) 11 SCC 474]
37. Poonam v. State of U.P. [(2011) 2 SCC 135]
38. Shri Ram Swaroop v. Union of India [(2007) 8 SCC

3
 9th AUMP INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

321]
39. R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department
[(2002) UKHL 52]

4
 9th AUMP INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

SCC Supreme court cases

ART Article
UOI Union of India
HON’BLE Honourable
SC Supreme court
U.P Uttar Pradesh
M.P Madhya Pradesh
ORS Others
S. Section
V. Versus
PIL Public interest litigation
INC. Included
ADV. Advocate
CL. Clause
HC High court
GOVT. Government
W.R.T With respect to
BNS Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

5
9th AUMP INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

6
 9th AUMP INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

Article 32 of the Indican Constitution grants the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Indica original
jurisdiction to consider petitions pertaining to the protection of fundamental rights. The Court
has the authority to hear cases involving serious human rights violations and constitutional
issues. Additionally, the Supreme Court has the authority to grant special leave to appeal any
judgment or order issued by a lower court in accordance with Art.136. The current case is
within the Supreme Court's jurisdiction due to the significant public interest issues, such as
claims of state-sponsored violence and systematic human rights abuses.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

7
 9th AUMP INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

1. The Historical Context and Meluhan Community

Making up around 2% of Indica's population, the Meluhan community is well-known for
its agricultural innovations and makes a substantial economic contribution. They have
been systematically ignored and marginalized in spite of their contributions. The
community's fight for recognition grew more intense after the 1995 violent insurgency, to
which the government responded harshly.

2. Jesse Whiteman ascent

Prominent Meluhan activist and lawyer Jesse Whiteman pushed for the establishment of
"Malikan," a separate state for the Meluhan people. He became well-known by using the
Universal States' Alien Tort Statute (ATS) to bring human rights claims against cricket
players and Indican politicians. The Indian government labelled Whiteman a terrorist in 2021
after he was accused of sedition and arms trafficking. He claimed these charges were
politically motivated and fled to the Universal States.

3. Jesse Whiteman assassination

On November 19, 2022, Mr. Bolt, an ex-Malikani activist, killed Jesse whiteman while he
was giving a lecture at Vayward College. Given his well-known opposition to the Meluhan
movement, there were accusations that the Chief Minister of Debrese was involved in the
assassination. Jesse's son, Mr. Sheldon Whiteman, complained against the Chief Minister in
the District Court, but the case was dropped due to insufficient evidence.

4. Demonstrations and Police Repression

Law students and activist organizations staged demonstrations in response to Whiteman

murder, calling for justice and accountability for the Meluhan community. As the protests
intensified, the police used excessive force in their response, deploying tear gas, making
unauthorized arrests, and shutting down the internet in the area.

5. Court Cases

8
 9th AUMP INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

Mr. Sheldon's complaint against the Chief Minister was rejected by both the District Court
and the High Court of India. In order to obtain an impartial inquiry, Mr. Sheldon filed an
appeal with the Supreme Court of Indica. The parents of students who were detained also
filed a writ petition against the police, claiming that their fundamental rights had been
violated. The Honorable Supreme Court is currently considering both petitions.

9
 9th AUMP INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Jurisdiction and Maintenance

- Given the petitioners' claims of fundamental rights abuses, does the Hon. Supreme
Court of India have the authority to hear this issue under Article 32 of the
Constitution?

- Do the petitions filed by the Free Voices Collective and Mr. Sheldon Whiteman
meet the requirements for maintainability, particularly in the context of public interest
litigation (PIL)?

2. Charges Made Against Debrese's Chief Minister

- Is there enough proof to support the claims that Debrese's chief minister broke his
constitutional and human rights duties by conspiring to assassinate Jesse Whiteman?

- Does the state's inability to provide Jesse Whiteman with sufficient security
constitute to wilful carelessness or involvement in his murder?

3. Police Accountability and Alleged Human Rights Violations

- Does the Debrese government's use of force during nonviolent protests and arbitrary
detentions violate fundamental rights as defined by Articles 19(1)(b) and 21?

- Did the state of Debrese's indefinite internet suspension violate fundamental rights
and not follow the 2017 Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services Rules'
procedural safeguards?

10
 9th AUMP INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

4. Freedom of Speech and Expression:

-Does Article 19(1)(a)'s guarantee of the right to free speech and expression get in the
way of the ban on the documentary about the Debrese Chief Minister?

- Does Jesse Whiteman's support for the creation of Malikan qualify as

constitutionally protected speech, and does criminalizing it amount to abuse of the
laws against sedition and preventive detention?

5. Compensation and Remedies

- Are the petitioners entitled to remedies for the harm caused by the state's actions,
such as monetary compensation, a declaration of rights violations, and a court-
monitored investigation?

- Should victims of internet shutdowns and police actions receive compensation for
the infringement of their fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21?

11
 9th AUMP INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. Jurisdiction and Enforcement

The petitioners contend that Article 32 grants the Honourable Supreme Court original
jurisdiction to consider cases involving violations of fundamental rights. Articles 19(1) (a),
19(1) (b), and 21 have been violated by the state's actions, which include the indiscriminate
shutdown of the internet, police brutality, and targeting of activists. As a result, the court
must act immediately.
.

• In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India1, the Preeminent Court confirmed that limitations on
freedom must be sensible, reasonable, and non-arbitrary. The detainment of dissidents and
the shutdown of the web fall flat these protected benchmarks.

• The solicitors yield that the political impact of the Chief Serve has compromised the
unbiasedness of neighbourhood courts, requiring Incomparable Court oversight. In Vineet
Narain v. Union of India (1998)2, the Court emphasized the require for unbiased
examinations in politically touchy cases.

• Open intrigued case standards legitimize legal mediation, as the Free Voices Collective
speaks to casualties of systemic rights infringement. In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981)3,
the Court extended the scope of PIL to address open intrigued concerns.

II. Allegations against the Chief Serve of Debrese

1
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 S.C.C. 248 (India).

2
Vineet Narain v. Union of India, (1998) 1 S.C.C. 226 (India).

3
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, (1981) Supp S.C.C. 87 (India).

12
 9th AUMP INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

• The solicitors contend that the Chief Minister's plainclothes nearness close Vayward
College, coupled with his open dangers against Jesse Whiteman, makes sensible doubt of
collaboration within the death.

• Prakash Kadam v. Ramprasad Gupta (2011)4: Extrajudicial killings organized by state on-
screen characters constitute abuse of control and require legal investigation.

• The state's disappointment to supply satisfactory security to Jesse Whiteman in spite of

valid dangers reflects net carelessness and raises questions of state complicity.

• Nandini Sundar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2011)5: The Incomparable Court held that the state
includes a positive commitment to secure people from predictable hurt.

• The death must be contextualized inside a broader design of state-sponsored viciousness

against protesters.

• Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab (2015)6: Police abundances and focusing on of dissidents
damage sacred assurances.

III. Police Obligation and Charged Infringement of Human Rights

• The intemperate utilize of drive amid serene challenges, counting tear gas and twirly doo
charges, damages Articles 19(1)(b) and 21.

• Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab (2015)7: Police activities must meet the standard of
proportionality.

• Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (1985)8: Self-assertive detainments without
legitimate defense encroach upon individual freedom.

4
Prakash Kadam v. Ramprasad Gupta, (2011) 6 S.C.C. 189 (India).

5
Nandini Sundar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2011) 7 S.C.C. 287 (India).

6
Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (2015) 9 S.C.C. 199 (India).

7
Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (2015) 9 S.C.C. 199 (India).

8
Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, (1985) 4 S.C.C. 677 (India).

13
 9th AUMP INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

• The uncertain web shutdown constitutes an outlandish and unbalanced limitation on

opportunity of discourse beneath Article 19(1)(a).

• Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020)9: Recognized get to to the web as a essential
right, requiring that confinements meet the test of proportionality.

IV. Flexibility of Discourse and Expression

• The forbiddance of the narrative damages the correct to opportunity of discourse and
expression beneath Article 19(1)(a) and makes a chilling impact on contradict.

• S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Smash (1989)10: Confinements on imaginative expression must

illustrate a clear and coordinate danger to open arrange.

• Right to Data Act, 2005: Segment 4(1)(c) obligates open specialists to reveal reasons for
regulatory activities, which was not taken after within the boycott.

• Jesse Whiteman's promotion for Malikan constitutes quiet political expression and does not
prompt viciousness or resistance.

• Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962)11: Rebellion laws must be barely connected to
discourse affecting viciousness.

• National Security Act, 1980: Conjuring preventive detainment arrangements against

tranquil backing is illegal.

V. Cures and Recompense

9
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 S.C.C. 637 (India).

10
S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, (1989) 2 S.C.C. 574 (India).

11
Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, 1962 Supp. (2) S.C.R. 769 (India).

14
 9th AUMP INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

• The applicants look for a court-monitored examination to guarantee responsibility for Jesse
Whiteman's death and related rights infringement.

• Rubabuddin Sheik v. State of Gujarat (2010)12: Autonomous request are basic when state
on-screen characters are involved in extrajudicial killings.

• Casualties of police brutality and subjective detainments are entitled to recompense for
infringement of Articles 19 and 21.

• Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993)13: Remuneration is fitting for state activities
encroaching on life and freedom.

• The Court ought to announce that the police activities, web shutdown, and narrative
forbiddance damage Articles 14, 19, and 21, and order systemic changes.

• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)14: Crucial rights are portion of the
Constitution's essential structure.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. JURISDICTION & MAINTAINABILITY

A. The Petition May Be Heard by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

12
Rubabuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 2 S.C.C. 200 (India).

13
Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 S.C.C. 746 (India).

14
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 S.C.C. 225 (India).

15
 9th AUMP INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

1. Supreme Court’s Jurisdiction Under Article 32 to Protect Fundamental

Rights: The petitioners believe that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has original authority
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, which gives a direct way to enforce
fundamental rights. The actions taken by the respondents, such as the internet
shutdown, police violence, and suppression of peaceful protests, have violated the
petitioners’ rights under Articles 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression), Article
19(1)(b) (right to peaceful assembly), and Article 21 (right to life and personal
liberty). These serious violations require the Supreme Court to step in to uphold
constitutional values and prevent lasting harm.

 In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India15, the Hon’ble Supreme Court broadened the
meaning of Article 21 by stating that the right to life and liberty must include the right
to live with dignity. Any limits on personal liberty must be reasonable, fair, and not
arbitrary. The petitioners argue that the detention of student protesters, the excessive
use of force, and the indiscriminate internet shutdown go against these principles of
dignity and liberty. The state’s actions in limiting dissent and silencing voices critical
of the Chief Minister, especially through heavy police measures, violate the wider
interpretation of Article 21 as stated in Maneka Gandhi.

 Similarly, in Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras16, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

noted that freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)) is the base of a
democratic society, and restrictions on these rights must be carefully crafted to meet
constitutional standards. The petitioners argue that the internet shutdown in Debrese,
imposed without following proper procedures, directly limited their ability to express
dissent and access information, violating the principles outlined in Romesh Thappar.

 Further, in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala17, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

stated that the protection of fundamental rights is part of the basic structure of the
Constitution. The petitioners argue that the state’s actions, which include stopping
protests and detaining peaceful demonstrators, violate these fundamental rights and
15
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 S.C.C. 248 (India).

16
Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, 1950 S.C.R. 594 (India).

17
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 S.C.C. 225 (India).

16
 9th AUMP INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

weaken the basic structure by undermining constitutional guarantees of freedom and

equality.

 In Sheela Barse v. Union of India18, the Supreme Court highlighted that human
rights violations and systematic abuses need the Court’s immediate attention to ensure
justice. The petitioners argue that the use of tear gas against peaceful protesters,
arbitrary arrests, and targeting dissenting voices amount to a systemic violation of
human rights, making it necessary for the Supreme Court to intervene.

 Also, in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal19, the Hon’ble Supreme Court set
specific guidelines to prevent custodial violence and abuse of state power, noting that
such actions erode constitutional values. The detention of students and activists during
peaceful protests, along with claims of mistreatment in custody, goes against these
guidelines, requiring judicial review under Article 32.

 In People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India20, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court emphasized the importance of due process in all state actions, especially those
involving police powers. Here, the indiscriminate arrests during peaceful protests and
the excessive use of force against demonstrators violate the guarantees of due process,
as highlighted in PUCL.

 In Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi21, the Hon’ble Court confirmed

that individual rights must be protected even in sensitive or politically charged
matters. The petitioners argue that the respondents’ actions, aimed at limiting dissent
against state policies, undermine the constitutional protections of individual freedoms
guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21.

2. Judicial Oversight When Lower Courts Fail to Act: The petitioners argue that the
state judiciary’s fairness has been affected due to the Chief Minister’s political

18
Sheela Barse v. Union of India, (1988) 4 S.C.C. 226 (India).

19
D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 S.C.C. 416 (India).

20
People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (1997) 3 S.C.C. 433 (India).

21
Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi, (2009) 111 D.L.T. 1 (Del.) (India).

17
 9th AUMP INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

influence, making the Supreme Court’s intervention necessary to ensure justice. The
Apex Court has consistently held that it must intervene when local institutions are
unable or unwilling to protect constitutional rights.

 In Vineet Narain v. Union of India22, the Hon’ble Supreme Court established

guidelines to ensure fair investigations and stop political interference in cases
involving high-ranking officials. The petitioners argue that the Chief Minister’s
control over investigative agencies in Debrese blocks accountability, needing judicial
oversight to ensure transparency and fairness.

 Similarly, in Rubabuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat23, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

called for an independent investigation into claims of state involvement in politically
motivated killings, stating that judicial intervention is necessary where state officials
are involved. The petitioners argue that the killing of Jesse Whiteman and the
targeting of Malikani activists show a larger pattern of state suppression, needing a
similar independent probe as ordered in Rubabuddin Sheikh.

 In Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar24, the Supreme Court ruled that access to
justice is a fundamental right, especially for marginalized groups. The petitioners
argue that the detained students and protesters, many lacking resources to challenge
state actions, need the Court’s intervention to vindicate their rights.

 In A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak25, the Hon’ble Supreme Court stressed that political
influence should not block justice, and the Apex Court must act to ensure fairness.
The petitioners allege that the Chief Minister’s political dominance has created
barriers to justice, needing the Court’s oversight to uphold the rule of law.

3. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) Principles Justify Intervention: The petitioners

argue that the larger public interest is significantly affected by the internet shutdown,

22
Vineet Narain v. Union of India, (1998) 1 S.C.C. 226 (India).

23
Rubabuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 2 S.C.C. 200 (India).

24
Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, (1979) 3 S.C.C. 227 (India).

25
A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1988) 2 S.C.C. 602 (India).

18
 9th AUMP INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

targeted detentions, and police violence, making this a suitable case for PIL
principles.

 In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India26, the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that PIL allows
public-spirited individuals or organizations to seek relief on behalf of affected
communities. The Free Voices Collective, representing detained students and victims
of police violence, acts in line with these principles.

 Likewise, in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala27, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court focused on the need to protect constitutional morality and the rights of
marginalized groups. The petitioners argue that the suppression of protests and dissent
in Debrese violates these principles, calling for judicial intervention.

 Further, in Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association v. Union of

India28, the Hon’ble Supreme Court demanded independent investigations into
extrajudicial killings, stressing the state’s accountability for human rights violations.
The petitioners argue that the targeting of Malikani activists and protesters shows a
pattern of state-sponsored suppression, needing similar independent oversight.

B. Petitions are Maintainable

1. Locus Standi of Mr. Sheldon Whiteman: As Jesse Whiteman’s son, Mr. Whiteman
has a direct and personal interest in seeking a fair investigation into his father’s
assassination, supported by Articles 14 and 21.

2. Parents and Activist Organizations’ Standing: The Free Voices Collective and the
parents of detained students represent the affected parties, whose rights under Articles
14, 19, and 21 have been violated by the state.

26
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, (1981) Supp S.C.C. 87 (India).

27
Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, (2018) 10 S.C.C. 469 (India).

28
Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association v. Union of India, (2016) 14 S.C.C.
536 (India).

19
 9th AUMP INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

II. CHARGES MADE AGAINST THE DEBRESE CHIEF MINISTER

A. The Alleged Involvement of the Chief Minister in the Assassination

1. Circumstantial Evidence Linking the Chief Minister to the Assassination: The

petitioners claim that the Chief Minister’s presence in plain clothes near Vayward
College, along with his public hostility toward Jesse Whiteman and the Malikani
movement, creates reasonable doubt about his involvement in the assassination. The
Chief Minister’s known hostility and public statement to “eliminate threats” raises
significant concerns about his role in this extrajudicial killing.

 In Prakash Kadam v. Ramprasad Gupta29, the Hon’ble Supreme Court condemned

extrajudicial killings as forms of state-sponsored terrorism, emphasizing that the state
must not use its power to eliminate dissenters. The petitioners argue that the
assassination of Jesse Whiteman reflects a similar misuse of state authority that
requires investigation.

 Similarly, in Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association v. Union of

India30, the Hon’ble Supreme Court called for independent investigations into
extrajudicial killings, highlighting the need for accountability when state actors are
involved. The petitioners argue that the circumstances surrounding Mr. Whiteman’s
death must be subject to an independent inquiry to uncover the truth.

 The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, stresses the state’s duty to uphold
human rights. The petitioners claim that the failure to protect Whiteman and the
subsequent assassination represent a serious violation of this duty since the state is
responsible for ensuring the safety of its citizens.

 Failure to Protect Jesse Whiteman Despite State Responsibility: The petitioners

argue that the state had a constitutional obligation to provide adequate security to Mr.

29
Prakash Kadam v. Ramprasad Gupta, (2011) 6 S.C.C. 189 (India).

30
Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association v. Union of India, (2016) 14 S.C.C.
536 (India).

20
 9th AUMP INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

Whiteman, especially considering the documented threats against him. The lack of
protection raises legitimate doubts about possible state involvement in his killing.

 In Nandini Sundar v. State of Chhattisgarh31, the Supreme Court stated that the
state has a positive duty to protect individuals from foreseeable harm—particularly
when there are known threats. The petitioners argue that the respondents’ negligence
in securing Mr. Whiteman’s safety violates this obligation.

 In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India32, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reinforced the
state’s duty to protect individual rights when faced with threats. The petitioners
emphasize that the state’s failure to prevent Whiteman’s assassination shows a breach
of this essential duty.

 Pattern of Targeting and Harassment of Activists: The assassination of Jesse

Whiteman should be viewed in the context of a larger pattern of state-sponsored
violence against dissenters, particularly Malikani activists. The systematic targeting of
activists, including the killing of John Pinkmann, highlights a troubling trend of state-
sponsored suppression.

 In Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab33, the Supreme Court discussed the implications
of police excesses and the need for accountability of state officials in targeting
dissenters. The petitioners argue that the killing of Mr. Whiteman fits this pattern,
indicating a connection between state actors and acts of violence against dissenters.

 Additionally, in Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana34, the Supreme Court stated that
the state must uphold the rights of all individuals, regardless of their political
affiliations. The petitioners argue that the targeted harassment of dissenting voices
like Mr. Whiteman’s violates this principle, suggesting that the Chief Minister’s
office is involved in broader efforts to suppress dissent.

31
Nandini Sundar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2011) 7 S.C.C. 287 (India).

32
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 1 S.C.C. 395 (India).

33
Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (2015) 9 S.C.C. 199 (India).

34
Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana, (1988) 4 S.C.C. 534 (India).

21
 9th AUMP INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

B. The Need for an Independent Investigation

 Conflict of Interest and Control Over Investigative Agencies: The petitioners

argue that the Chief Minister’s control over police and investigative agencies
compromises the fairness of any investigation into the claims of state involvement.
They state that only a court-monitored or independent investigation can ensure
transparency and accountability.

 In Vineet Narain v. Union of India35, the Hon’ble Supreme Court established that
fair investigations are essential when political influence is suspected. The petitioners
argue that given the Chief Minister’s influence over state apparatus, an independent
investigation is critical for ensuring justice.

 Similarly, in Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi)36, the Supreme Court stated
that the conduct of state officials must be independently investigated when the
integrity of state machinery is in question. The petitioners contend that the
circumstances surrounding Jesse Whiteman’s assassination require independent
scrutiny to maintain public trust.

 Judicial Oversight in High-Profile Cases: The petitioners claim that allegations

involving senior public officials demand a higher standard of procedural safeguards to
maintain public trust in the judicial process.

 In A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak37, the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized that
allegations against high-ranking officials require special scrutiny to ensure fairness in
the investigation. The petitioners assert that a court-monitored investigation is
essential in this case to prevent any potential bias or cover-up by state authorities.

35
Vineet Narain v. Union of India, (1998) 1 S.C.C. 226 (India).

36
Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2006) 2 S.C.C. 677 (India).

37
A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1988) 2 S.C.C. 602 (India).

22
 9th AUMP INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

 In Sankaranarayanan v. State of Kerala38, the Hon’ble Supreme Court mandated

independent investigations when the impartiality of state forces was questioned. The
petitioners argue that this case shares similar characteristics, requiring similar judicial
oversight.

Conclusion (For This Section):

 The petitioners assert that there is strong evidence suggesting that the Chief Minister
may have been involved in the extrajudicial killing of Jesse Whiteman. They seek a
court-monitored investigation and stress the need for accountability and transparency
due to the systemic targeting of Malikani activists. The state’s failure to uphold its
responsibilities calls for judicial intervention to restore public faith in the rule of law.

III. HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS DURING PROTESTS

A. Illicit Use of Police Power

 Violations of Articles 19(1)(b) and 21 Due to Excessive Force: The petitioners

argue that the police's use of tear gas, baton charges, and arbitrary detentions during
the mostly peaceful student protests represents a serious violation of their rights to
peaceful assembly under Article 19(1)(b) and the right to life and personal liberty
under Article 21. The principle of proportionality, which is fundamental to
constitutional governance, demands that state responses must be reasonable and
necessary to achieve legitimate aims.

 In Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab39, the Hon’ble Supreme Court stressed that police
must exercise restraint and ensure that any use of force matches the threat posed. The
excessive deployment of tear gas against peaceful demonstrators was not only
disproportionate but also a clear infringement of constitutional rights, as established
in Ranjit Singh.

38
Sankaranarayanan v. State of Kerala, (2009) 1 S.C.C. 60 (India).
39
Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (2015) 9 S.C.C. 199 (India).

23
 9th AUMP INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

 In Karam Singh v. State of Haryana40, the Court reiterated that law enforcement
must uphold justice and human rights, especially when dealing with assemblies. The
petitioners argue that the actions taken during the protests violated these principles
and caused unnecessary harm to individuals exercising their constitutional rights.

 In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India41, the Supreme Court highlighted the state’s duty
to protect the rights of citizens. The indiscriminate use of force during protests
violates this duty, as it not only puts citizens' lives at risk but also undermines the rule
of law.

 Additionally, in Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir42, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court emphasized that arbitrary detention by state authorities without due process is
unacceptable and infringes upon personal liberty. The petitioners argue that the
detention of students during the protests was carried out without legal justification,
violating their rights under Article 21.

B. Shutting Down the Internet

 Violation of Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 Through Internet Shutdown: The petitioners

argue that the indefinite suspension of internet services in Debrese is a direct violation
of their fundamental rights to freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)) and
access to information (implied under Article 21). The right to access the internet is
essential for exercising these rights, as modern communication heavily relies on
digital platforms.

 In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India43, the Hon’ble Supreme Court recognized

that access to the internet is a fundamental right, and any restrictions must be
reasonable and proportionate. The petitioners argue that the arbitrary and prolonged

40
Karam Singh v. State of Haryana, (2004) 4 S.C.C. 245 (India).

41
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 1 S.C.C. 395 (India).

42
Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, (1985) 4 S.C.C. 677 (India).

43
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 S.C.C. 637 (India).

24
 9th AUMP INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

internet shutdown violates these principles, as it was implemented without

justification or due consideration of its impact on citizens’ rights.

 In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India44, the Supreme Court struck down laws that
imposed vague and broad restrictions on freedom of speech, highlighting the need to
protect dissenting voices. The petitioners assert that the internet shutdown served to
silence criticism of the government, thereby infringing upon their rights under Article
19(1)(a).

 In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India45, the Hon’ble Court expanded the

interpretation of the right to privacy to include the right to access personal
information, therefore establishing that internet accessibility is part of the rights
guaranteed under Article 21. The petitioners argue that the internet suspension harms
their privacy and access to information, which is protected under this ruling.

 In Hukum Chand Lal v. Union of India46, the Supreme Court emphasized that state
actions affecting fundamental rights must follow principles of reasonableness and be
justified by clear evidence of necessity. The petitioners argue that the internet
shutdown did not demonstrate such necessity, making it unconstitutional.

 Lack of Procedural Safeguards in the Internet Shutdown: The petitioners

highlight that the internet suspension was not only arbitrary but also illegal, as it
violated procedural safeguards outlined in the Temporary Suspension of Telecom
Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017. These rules require that
any restrictions on telecom services must be temporary, justified, and subject to
review.

 In Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra47, the Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled that
state actions taken in emergencies must follow established procedures to protect

44
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 S.C.C. 1 (India).

45
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 S.C.C. 1 (India).

46
Hukum Chand Lal v. Union of India, (1976) 2 S.C.C. 128 (India).

47
Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 884 (India).

25
 9th AUMP INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

individual rights. The lack of adherence to these procedural safeguards during the
internet shutdown in Debrese further supports the petitioners’ claims of rights
violations.

 In Madhya Pradesh v. K.K. Mishra48, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that police
powers should be exercised with caution and respect for individual rights. The
petitioners argue that the blanket internet suspension represents a misuse of police
authority and significantly infringes on civil liberties.

Conclusion (For This Section):

 The petitioners assert that the excessive use of police force during protests and the
indiscriminate internet shutdown represent significant violations of their fundamental
rights under Articles 19 and 21. The state’s actions were disproportionate, arbitrary,
and unlawful, needing judicial intervention to restore constitutional protections.

IV. FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION

A. Prohibition of the Documentary

 Violation of Article 19(1)(a) and the Right to Freedom of Speech and

Expression: The petitioners argue that the ban on the documentary about the Chief
Minister directly violates Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees the freedom to seek,
receive, and share information. The documentary provides critical commentary on the
Chief Minister’s governance, and its ban stifles both dissent and accountability in a
democratic society. The blanket prohibition aims solely to silence criticism of the
state government.

 In S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram49, the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that

restrictions on creative works, including films, are not justified unless the content
poses a clear and present danger to public order. The petitioners argue that the

48
Madhya Pradesh v. K.K. Mishra, (2000) 2 S.C.C. 397 (India).

49
S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, (1989) 2 S.C.C. 574 (India).

26
 9th AUMP INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

documentary does not incite violence or disturb public peace, making the state’s
censorship unconstitutional based on the precedent set in S. Rangarajan.

 The Right to Information Act, 2005: Section 4(1)(c) of the RTI Act requires public
authorities to disclose reasons for their administrative decisions affecting public
discourse. The petitioners argue that the ban on the documentary was executed
without public justification, violating their right to know and the obligation of
transparency under the RTI Act. The lack of transparency in banning the documentary
further undermines constitutional values.

 In Hindustan Times Ltd. v. Union of India50, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

reaffirmed the essential role of media freedom in democracy, stating that restrictions
on free speech must meet compelling public interest standards. The petitioners argue
that the documentary ban does not serve any legitimate public interest and is instead
aimed at suppressing dissent.

 The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993: The petitioners invoke this Act,
particularly its focus on protecting civil liberties, to argue that the documentary's
prohibition violates their human rights to free expression and access to information.
The state’s actions undermine the safeguards meant to protect freedom of thought and
opinion.

B. Chilling Effect on Democratic Discourse:

 The petitioners argue that the ban on the documentary creates a chilling effect,
discouraging individuals and media from voicing critical opinions about the
government. This undermines public debate and weakens democratic accountability.

 The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Section 144: By extending the
chilling effect beyond assemblies, the restrictive orders issued under Section 144 of
the CrPC during protests further silenced public discourse and stifled the release of
materials critical of the Chief Minister. The petitioners argue that the misuse of

50
Hindustan Times Ltd. v. Union of India, (1998) 3 S.C.C. 1 (India).

27
 9th AUMP INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

Section 144, combined with the documentary ban, shows a systematic effort to
suppress dissent.

 In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India51, the Hon’ble Supreme Court struck down
vague restrictions on free speech, emphasizing the need to protect dissent from
arbitrary state actions. The petitioners contend that the ban on the documentary
reflects such arbitrary and overbroad restrictions.

C. Supporting Malikan as Protected Speech

 No Incitement to Violence or Public Disorder: The petitioners state that Jesse

Whiteman’s speeches advocating for Malikan’s political autonomy do not incite
violence or disrupt public order. Instead, they represent peaceful advocacy, which is
protected under Article 19(1)(a). The state’s attempt to criminalize his speech under
sedition laws is a misuse of authority aimed at silencing dissent rather than addressing
genuine threats to security.

 In Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar52, the Supreme Court clarified that sedition
laws must be applied narrowly, only to speech that incites imminent violence or
rebellion. The petitioners argue that Whiteman’s speeches advocate for autonomy
without calling for violence, which are constitutionally protected and do not constitute
sedition.

 The National Security Act, 1980: The petitioners argue that using preventive
detention provisions under this Act against Jesse Whiteman was unjustified and
disproportionate. His speeches did not endanger public security, and applying the
NSA to silence peaceful advocacy violates the Act’s intent and constitutional values.

 In Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab53, the Hon’ble Supreme Court acquitted

individuals accused of sedition for shouting political slogans, stating that vague or

51
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 S.C.C. 1 (India).

52
Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, 1962 Supp. (2) S.C.R. 769 (India).

53
Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab, (1995) 3 S.C.C. 214 (India).

28
 9th AUMP INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

general expressions of dissent cannot qualify as sedition without a direct link to

violence. The petitioners assert that Whiteman’s speeches fall under the category of
protected political advocacy.

 Right to Criticize Government Policies: Jesse Whiteman’s criticism of the Chief

Minister’s governance and his advocacy for Malikani autonomy are protected as
political dissent under Article 19(1)(a) and are essential for democratic governance.
The state’s attempt to criminalize his speech reflects a violation of constitutionally
guaranteed freedoms.

 The Information Technology Act, 2000: Section 69A of this Act allows the
government to block online content only when it poses a threat to public order or
national security. The petitioners argue that the state’s application of this provision to
suppress Whiteman’s online speeches and advocacy for Malikan was excessive, as his
statements did not meet the threshold of posing any actual danger to public safety.

 In Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras54, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
political dissent is central to the right to free speech. The petitioners argue that
Whiteman’s speeches criticizing state policies align with the principles laid down
in Romesh Thappar.

 In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India55, the Court affirmed that the right to personal
expression is fundamental to individual dignity and autonomy. The petitioners
contend that suppressing Whiteman’s speeches infringes upon these principles,
violating his right to express political opinions.

Conclusion (For This Section):

 The petitioners argue that the ban on the documentary and the criminalization of Jesse
Whiteman’s speeches demonstrate a misuse of state power, violating their
fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21. Moreover, the misuse of laws like
the NSA, IT Act, and CrPC showcases an unconstitutional overreach that undermines

54
Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, 1950 S.C.R. 594 (India).

55
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 S.C.C. 1 (India).

29
 9th AUMP INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

democratic accountability. The petitioners seek judicial intervention to restore their

rights and affirm the principles of free expression.

V. REMEDIES AND COMPENSATION

A. Court-Monitored Investigation

 Judicial Oversight to Ensure Accountability: The petitioners seek a court-

monitored investigation into the assassination of Jesse Whiteman, police actions
during protests, and the blanket internet shutdown. The petitioners argue that the
Chief Minister’s control over the police and investigative agencies undermines the
fairness of any inquiry. Judicial oversight is vital to ensure transparency and
accountability in politically sensitive matters.

 In Vineet Narain v. Union of India56, the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that
impartial investigations are crucial when political influence is suspected. The Court
emphasized that the independence of investigations is key to upholding the rule of
law. The petitioners argue that given the Chief Minister's political influence over state
authorities, an independent investigation is necessary to ensure justice and
accountability, as highlighted in Vineet Narain.

 In Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi)57, the Hon’ble Court ruled that
independent investigations should be ordered when state officials' conduct is
questioned. The petitioners contend that the politically sensitive nature of Mr.
Whiteman’s assassination requires a similar direction for a court-monitored
investigation.

 In Rubabuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat58, the Court called for an independent

inquiry into allegations of state involvement in extrajudicial killings. The petitioners

56
Vineet Narain v. Union of India, (1998) 1 S.C.C. 226 (India).

57
Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2006) 2 S.C.C. 677 (India).

58
Rubabuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 2 S.C.C. 200 (India).

30
 9th AUMP INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

assert that the systemic targeting of Malikani activists and the broader implications of
state violence require a thorough and independent investigation to uncover the truth.

 In Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association v. Union of India59, the

Supreme Court mandated independent investigations into extrajudicial killings,
reinforcing the principle that state actors must be held accountable for their actions.
The petitioners argue that the same principles apply here, calling for a strong
investigation into the actions surrounding Jesse Whiteman's assassination.

 In A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak60, the Hon’ble Court stressed that allegations against
high-ranking officials require special scrutiny to ensure fairness in legal proceedings.
The petitioners submit that given the Chief Minister’s alleged involvement, a court-
appointed investigation is essential for securing justice.

B. Compensation for State Violations

 Entitlement to Compensation for Police Brutality: The petitioners assert that

victims of police violence, arbitrary detentions, and the internet shutdown are entitled
to monetary compensation for the violations of their fundamental rights under Articles
19 and 21. Judicial precedent consistently recognizes compensation as a remedy for
state actions infringing constitutional rights.

 In Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa61, the Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled that
compensation is warranted for violations of life and liberty caused by state actions.
The petitioners argue that the victims of police violence, including those injured
during protests or unlawfully detained, deserve compensation under the principles
established in Nilabati Behera.

59
Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association v. Union of India, (2016) 14 S.C.C. 536 (India).

60
A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1988) 2 S.C.C. 602 (India).

61
Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 S.C.C. 746 (India).

31
 9th AUMP INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

 In Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir62, the Supreme Court awarded
damages for wrongful detention, emphasizing that arbitrary state actions violate
personal liberty and must be remedied through compensation. The petitioners contend
that the arrests of peaceful protesters and the use of excessive force necessitate
compensation for these violations.

 In D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal63, the Hon’ble Court laid down guidelines to
prevent custodial violence and stressed the need for accountability in cases of police
abuse. The petitioners argue that since the police actions during the protests amounted
to custodial violence, victims must be compensated adequately.

 In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India64, the Supreme Court highlighted the state’s duty
to protect individual rights and stated that failure to prevent foreseeable harm creates
liability for compensatory relief. The petitioners submit that the state’s inability to
protect peaceful protesters from violence constitutes a breach of this duty, justifying
compensation.

 Compensation for Internet Shutdown and Suppression of Speech: The petitioners

argue that the arbitrary and indefinite internet shutdown, which restricted their access
to information and curtailed their speech, constitutes a violation of constitutional
rights that warrants compensatory relief.

 In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India65, the Hon’ble Supreme Court acknowledged

that internet access is a fundamental right, and any restrictions on it must be justified
and proportionate. The petitioners argue that the indiscriminate suspension of internet
services violates their rights under Article 19(1)(a), and they deserve compensation
for the harm caused by this unconstitutional action.

62
Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, (1985) 4 S.C.C. 677 (India).

63
D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 S.C.C. 416 (India).

64
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 1 S.C.C. 395 (India).

65
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 S.C.C. 637 (India).

32
 9th AUMP INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

 In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India66, the Hon’ble Court struck down arbitrary
restrictions on free speech, asserting that such limitations create a chilling effect on
individual expression. The petitioners contend that the internet shutdown had a similar
effect, depriving them of the ability to share and receive information, thus warranting
compensation.

C. Declaration of Rights Violations

 Judicial Recognition of Constitutional Violations by the State: The petitioners

seek a declaration that the police actions, internet shutdown, and prohibition of the
documentary constitute violations of their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19,
and 21. Such a declaration is important to affirm the need for systemic reforms to
prevent future violations.

 In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala67, the Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled that
the protection of fundamental rights is part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
The petitioners argue that the respondents’ actions, which infringe upon their rights,
undermine this basic structure and must be declared unconstitutional.

 In Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India68, the Court reiterated the importance of
balancing fundamental rights and state power. The petitioners submit that the state’s
actions in suppressing dissent and targeting activists violate this balance, calling for
judicial recognition of their constitutional breaches.

 In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India69, the Court stated that arbitrary state actions
cannot be justified under any law and must be invalidated if they infringe upon
fundamental rights. The petitioners argue that the police actions and the internet

66
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 S.C.C. 1 (India).

67
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 S.C.C. 225 (India).

68
Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, (1980) 3 S.C.C. 625 (India).

69
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 S.C.C. 248 (India).

33
 9th AUMP INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

shutdown reflect such arbitrary measures, warranting a declaration that these actions
are unconstitutional.

Conclusion (For This Section):

 The petitioners argue that the state’s actions represent significant violations of their
fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21. They seek a court-monitored
investigation, monetary compensation for the violations suffered, and a judicial
declaration recognizing the unconstitutionality of the actions taken by the
respondents. Such measures are essential to restore justice and uphold the rule of law
in Debrese.

34
 9th AUMP INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

PRAYER

The petitioners respectfully ask that this hon’ble Court, in view of the facts and legal
arguments:
1. Order an independent investigation into the assassination of Mr. Jesse Whiteman,
including the suspected involvement of the Debrese Chief Minister.
2. Declare that Debrese's internet shutdown violates fundamental rights and is
unconstitutional.
3. Prohibit student detentions during demonstrations and mandate restitution for victims of
police abuse.
4. Issue any additional orders that the Honorable Court determines are necessary for the sake
of justice.
SD/- Petitioners' Counsel

35