[3RD LBSNAA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025]

TEAM CODE – TC -

3rd LBSNAA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

2025

Before

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF GASOTA

WRIT JURISDICTION

The Jurisdiction of this Court is

invoked under article 32 of the
The Constitution of GASOTA

In the matters of
People’s Union for Justice & Rights (PUJR)…….……………...… Petitioners
Vs.
Republic of Gasota…...…………………………………………… Respondents

MEMORIAL on behalf of the PETITIONER

1
MEMORIAL on behalf of the PETITIONER
 [3RD LBSNAA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS..................................................................................................II

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS...........................................................................................III

STATEMENT OF FACTS..............................................................................................VII

WHETHER SECTION 46 OF THE UNNAT PRADESH POLICE ACT 1949 AND UNNAT
PRADESH CRIME CONTROL REGULATIONS, 2023 UNCONSTITUTIONAL?......................... VIII

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS......................................................................................IX

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED............................................................................................1

ISSUE 1 – WHETHER SECTION 46 OF THE UNNAT PRADESH POLICE ACT 1949 AND
UNNAT PRADESH CRIME CONTROL REGULATIONS, 2023 UNCONSTITUTIONAL?................1
1.1. SECTION 46 AND UNNAT PRADESH CRIME CONTROL REGULATIONS VIOLATE RIGHT TO
PRIVACY UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF CONSTITUTION OF WINDIA.......................................................1
1.2. THE SAID PROVISIONS OF THE ACT VIOLATES THE PRINCIPLE OF RULE OF LAW..............3
1.3. SECTION 46 AND ITS ASSOCIATED REGULATIONS SUFFER FROM A DEARTH OF JUDICIAL
OVERSIGHT……………………………………………………………………………………..5

ISSUE 2 - WHETHER POLICE CAN DELEGATE ITS INVESTIGATIVE FUNCTIONS TO

PRIVATE PARTIES AND WHO BEARS THE LIABILITY IF THE ACTIONS CONCERNED LEAD
TO BREACH OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.................................................................................5
2.1 DELEGATION OF INVESTIGATIVE POWERS TO PRIVATE PARTIES WILL VIOLATE
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS................................................................................................................5
2.2 VIOLATES THE PRINCIPLE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW..........................................................7

ISSUE 3 - DID SACHIBAI HAVE A RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN IN TERMS OF PERMANENT

ERASURE OF HER PAST CRIMINAL RECORDS?....................................................................10

2
MEMORIAL on behalf of the PETITIONER
 [3RD LBSNAA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025]

1.1 THE PUBLIC DISPLAY OF THE PAST RECORDS WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE
21 OF THE WINDIA CONSTITUTION WHICH GUARANTEES RIGHT TO PRIVACY......................10
1.2 THE NON-ERASURE OF THE CRIMINAL RECORD COULD BREACH THE REPUTATION OF
THE VICTIM.
1.3 RIGHT TO FORGOTTEN IS NOW BECOMING THE INHERENT PART OF THE HUMAN LIFE.
12

ISSUE 4 - DID SACHIBAI HAVE A RIGHT TO MARRY AND, DID THAT RIGHT OVERRIDE
THE RIGHT OF HER POTENTIAL SPOUSE TO BE PROTECTED FROM DEADLY DISEASES ?
15
4.1 THE RIGHT TO MARRY IS THE CONSTITUENT OF RIGHT TO LIFE.................................16

PRAYER.........................................................................................................................18

3
MEMORIAL on behalf of the PETITIONER
 [3RD LBSNAA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025]

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner hereby invokes the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to constitutional remedies for the
enforcement of fundamental rights. The Petitioner submits that the present case raises
substantial questions of law concerning the violation of Articles 14, 19, and 21, and seeks
appropriate reliefs as provided under the law.

This Hon’ble Court has the authority to entertain this petition and grant relief as per its
plenary powers to uphold the rule of law, ensure accountability of state authorities, and
prevent the abuse of power by law enforcement agencies

4
MEMORIAL on behalf of the PETITIONER
 [3RD LBSNAA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025]

STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. Background of the Case

The present case concerns the alleged extrajudicial killings of multiple individuals by law
enforcement officers under the pretext of maintaining public order. The police officials claim
that the deceased were dangerous criminals who posed an imminent threat, justifying the use
of lethal force. However, substantial evidence suggests that these were staged encounters
orchestrated without due process, in clear violation of constitutional guarantees.
B. Invocation of Emergency Powers by the State
The Respondent State, citing concerns of rising crime, invoked Section 163 of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita to justify curfews and restrictions, allowing law enforcement officers broad
discretion to use force. However, this provision does not authorize extrajudicial killings and

5
MEMORIAL on behalf of the PETITIONER
 [3RD LBSNAA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025]

must be exercised within constitutional parameters. The misuse of emergency powers raises
concerns about executive overreach and the arbitrary deprivation of life.
C. Lack of Independent Investigation and Due Process Violations
The police failed to adhere to the Supreme Court-mandated guidelines in PUCL v. State
of Maharashtra (2014), which require an independent investigation into all police
encounters. No First Information Reports (FIRs) were registered against the officers
involved, no forensic or ballistic evidence was properly documented, and no judicial inquiry
was conducted. These lapses demonstrate a systemic failure to ensure accountability for state
actions.
D. Contradictory Government Statements
Government officials initially claimed that the deceased individuals were armed and engaged
in a violent confrontation with law enforcement. However, subsequent reports revealed
contradictions in witness statements and forensic evidence, suggesting that at least some
of the victims were unarmed civilians. The conflicting official narratives further indicate a
lack of transparency and accountability.
E. Public Outcry and Media Investigation

The case gained significant attention due to widespread public protests and independent
media investigations, which uncovered serious discrepancies in the official accounts of
the encounters. Human rights organizations and legal experts have called for a judicial
probe, citing concerns that such actions set a dangerous precedent for state-sanctioned
violence and erosion of constitutional protections.

ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

ISSUE 1–

WHETHER THE ENCOUNTER KILLINGS VIOLATE ARTICLES 14, 19, AND 21 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

6
MEMORIAL on behalf of the PETITIONER
 [3RD LBSNAA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025]

ISSUE 2 –

WHETHER THE INVOCATION OF SECTION 163 AND THE USE OF FORCE CONSTITUTE ABUSE
OF POWER.

ISSUE 3 –
WHETHER THE POLICE OFFICERS INVOLVED SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE
ALLEGED EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLINGS, AND WHAT STANDARD OF PROOF SHOULD BE

APPLIED IN SUCH CASES.

ISSUE 4 –

WHETHER THE STATE GOVERNMENT’S ACTIONS IN DEFENDING THE POLICE ENCOUNTERS

CAN BE JUSTIFIED IN THE INTEREST OF MAINTAINING PUBLIC ORDER, OR IF THEY

UNDERMINE THE RULE OF LAW AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

_____[ISSUE 1]_____
WHETHER THE ENCOUNTER KILLINGS VIOLATE ARTICLES 14, 19, AND 21 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
It is humbly submitted that the encounter killings in the present case are unconstitutional as
they violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the
Constitution. The right to life under Article 21 cannot be curtailed without a fair legal
process, and extrajudicial killings amount to state-sanctioned executions, depriving
individuals of due process. The arbitrary nature of these encounters further violates Article
14, which guarantees equality before the law, as victims are denied their right to legal
7
MEMORIAL on behalf of the PETITIONER
 [3RD LBSNAA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025]

recourse. Additionally, Article 19 freedoms, particularly the right to free speech and
expression, are affected as such state actions create a chilling effect, discouraging dissent and
public criticism. The fear of similar state excesses prevents individuals from exercising their
democratic rights. The absence of independent investigations, procedural safeguards, and
judicial oversight renders these actions illegal. Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court
intervenes to restore the rule of law and uphold constitutional principles.
_____[ISSUE 2]_____
WHETHER THE INVOCATION OF SECTION 163 AND THE USE OF FORCE CONSTITUTE ABUSE
OF POWER.

It is humbly submitted that the invocation of Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
and the subsequent use of force by law enforcement officers constitute an abuse of power
and are unconstitutional. The provision, meant to regulate public order, does not authorize
extrajudicial killings or allow the police to act as judge, jury, and executioner. The arbitrary
enforcement of emergency powers has led to the unlawful deprivation of life, violating
fundamental rights. Furthermore, the lack of judicial oversight, independent investigation,
and procedural safeguards indicates systemic impunity. The failure to register FIRs,
conduct forensic examinations, or follow due process raises serious concerns about
executive overreach. The unchecked use of force disproportionately affects marginalized
communities, reinforcing discriminatory law enforcement practices. It is respectfully
prayed that this Hon’ble Court strike down the misuse of Section 163, order an impartial
investigation, and issue clear guidelines to prevent future abuses, ensuring that state
actions remain within constitutional limits.
_____[ISSUE 3]_____
DID SACHIBAI HAVE A RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN IN TERMS OF PERMANENT ERASURE
OF HER PAST CRIMINAL RECORDS?
It is humbly submitted that the police officers involved in the alleged extrajudicial killings
must be held accountable, as their actions constitute a gross violation of constitutional and
human rights. The right to life and due process cannot be circumvented under any
circumstances, and the failure to follow legal procedures raises serious concerns about state
impunity. The burden of proof must rest on the state to justify its actions beyond
reasonable doubt. Law enforcement officials cannot claim self-defense without clear and
credible evidence proving an imminent threat. The absence of forensic reports, post-mortem
findings, and independent witness testimonies raises strong suspicions of a staged

8
MEMORIAL on behalf of the PETITIONER
 [3RD LBSNAA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025]

encounter. The failure to register First Information Reports (FIRs) or conduct independent
investigations further underscores the need for judicial intervention. Furthermore, the
principle of command responsibility dictates that superior officers must be held liable if
they failed to prevent or punish unlawful actions committed by their subordinates. The lack
of disciplinary action against senior officials overseeing the operation highlights a systemic
failure in ensuring accountability.
Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court directs an independent Special Investigation
Team (SIT) to conduct an impartial inquiry and hold the responsible officers accountable
under the law.

_____[ISSUE 4]_____
WHETHER THE STATE GOVERNMENT’S ACTIONS IN DEFENDING THE POLICE ENCOUNTERS
CAN BE JUSTIFIED IN THE INTEREST OF MAINTAINING PUBLIC ORDER, OR IF THEY

UNDERMINE THE RULE OF LAW AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS?

It is humbly submitted that the state government’s defense of extrajudicial killings cannot be
justified under the pretext of maintaining public order. Upholding the rule of law requires
adherence to constitutional safeguards, and the government cannot condone illegal police
actions that deprive individuals of their fundamental rights. By defending these encounters
without conducting an independent investigation, the state has violated the victims’ right
to justice and undermined public confidence in law enforcement. The failure to ensure
judicial oversight, transparency, and accountability encourages a culture of impunity,
eroding democratic principles.

9
MEMORIAL on behalf of the PETITIONER
 [3RD LBSNAA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025]

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1 – THE ENCOUNTER KILLINGS VIOLATE ARTICLES 14, 19, AND 21 OF

THE CONSTITUTION

A. Violation of Article 21: Right to Life

[¶ 1] The right to life is inviolable and forms the cornerstone of all fundamental rights. Article 21
mandates that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to
procedure established by law. This implies that any curtailment of life must be sanctioned
through a fair, just, and reasonable process. However, police encounters amount to state-
sponsored killings without adherence to due process.
[¶ 2] The Supreme Court in People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. State of Maharashtra (2014)
unequivocally held that every police encounter must be subjected to independent
investigation. The rationale behind this is to prevent the misuse of power by law
enforcement agencies and to ensure that the rule of law prevails over rule by force.
[¶ 3] NHRC Guidelines on Encounter Killings: The National Human Rights Commission
(NHRC) has laid down specific guidelines regarding police encounters. As per these
guidelines:
a. Immediate registration of FIR is mandatory.
b. A magisterial inquiry must be conducted to ascertain whether excessive force was used.
c. The burden of proof lies on the police to establish self-defense.
d. Autopsy reports must be made public to ensure transparency. Failure to follow these
procedures results in a blatant disregard for human rights and due process, making the
encounters illegitimate and unconstitutional.
[¶ 4] Doctrine of Rarest of Rare Cases: In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980), the Supreme
Court established the principle that capital punishment can only be awarded in rarest of rare
cases through a judicial process. However, the extrajudicial killings undertaken by the
police bypass this judicial mechanism, turning law enforcement officials into judge, jury,
and executioner.

10
MEMORIAL on behalf of the PETITIONER
 [3RD LBSNAA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025]

[¶ 5] International Human Rights Standards: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

(UDHR) and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) establish that
state-sanctioned killings must be subjected to judicial review. The lack of judicial scrutiny
in police encounters violates India’s international human rights obligations.
[¶ 6] Case of Fake Encounters in India: Various commissions, including the Justice V.K.
Agarwal Committee on Fake Encounters, have emphasized that police encounters have
been misused to eliminate individuals without trial.
[¶ 7] Judicial Precedents Mandating Accountability: The Supreme Court in Extra Judicial
Execution Victim Families Association v. Union of India (2016) underscored that state
agents cannot be allowed to become law unto themselves. The Court ruled that all cases of
encounter killings must be independently investigated to prevent a culture of impunity.
[¶ 8] Violation of the Right to a Fair Trial: The principle of Audi Alteram Partem (No one shall
be condemned unheard) is fundamental to the administration of justice. The Supreme Court
in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) emphasized that the procedure established by
law must be fair, just, and reasonable. Encounters violate this principle as they deprive
individuals of the right to defend themselves in a court of law.
[¶ 9] Comparative Legal Perspective: The European Court of Human Rights in McCann and
Others v. United Kingdom (1995) held that law enforcement officers must employ the least
lethal means available when dealing with suspects. The police in the present case failed to
take reasonable precautions before resorting to lethal force.
[¶ 10] Impact of Encounters on the Rule of Law: The normalization of encounter killings creates
an environment of fear and undermines public trust in legal institutions. The judiciary must
intervene to uphold constitutional supremacy and prevent executive overreach.

B. Violation of Article 14: Right to Equality

[¶ 11] Arbitrary Classification and Discriminatory Action: The principle of equality before the law
is a foundational pillar of constitutional governance. Article 14 prohibits arbitrary
classification that creates differential treatment among similarly placed individuals. The
police’s extrajudicial killings classify certain individuals as threats without judicial
oversight, thereby depriving them of their right to legal recourse. This amounts to state-
imposed discrimination, violating the very essence of equal protection under the law.
[¶ 12] Absence of a Rational Nexus Between State Action and Objectives: In State of West
Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952), the Supreme Court underscored that any classification
11
MEMORIAL on behalf of the PETITIONER
 [3RD LBSNAA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025]

created by the state must have a rational nexus to a legitimate objective. In the present case,
the state’s decision to execute individuals without trial lacks any such nexus. The arbitrary
killings fail to satisfy the two-pronged test of intelligible differentia and rational connection
to the objective sought to be achieved.
[¶ 13] Violation of the Equal Protection Clause: The arbitrary denial of due process selectively
targets a class of individuals, most often socio-economically marginalized or those labeled
as ‘criminals’ based on unverified intelligence. This constitutes a gross violation of the
equal protection clause, as enshrined in Article 14. The Supreme Court in E.P. Royappa v.
State of Tamil Nadu (1974) held that arbitrariness is antithetical to equality. Therefore, state
action that deprives individuals of life without following established legal procedures is
unconstitutional.
[¶ 14] Selective Application of Law Undermines Rule of Law: The Indian Constitution does not
vest law enforcement agencies with unchecked discretion to determine guilt. The failure to
subject police officers to the same judicial scrutiny as civilians demonstrates a lack of
uniform legal application, violating the principle of rule of law, as emphasized in
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973).
[¶ 15] Absence of Due Process in Identifying ‘Criminals’: Encounters disproportionately affect
those labeled as offenders without affording them the opportunity of a fair trial. The
presumption of innocence until proven guilty is a core tenet of criminal jurisprudence. The
Supreme Court in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1980) emphasized that no individual
should be deprived of their fundamental rights, even if accused of heinous offenses.
Therefore, pre-judging individuals as criminals and executing them without affording them
access to legal remedies violates due process.
[¶ 16] Violation of International Human Rights Standards: International law upholds the right to
equality and protection against arbitrary state actions. The United Nations Human Rights
Committee (UNHRC), in its General Comment No. 36 on the Right to Life, mandates that
law enforcement officials must comply with principles of legality, necessity, and
proportionality. The police’s actions in the present case fail to adhere to these requirements.
[¶ 17] Judicial Safeguards to Prevent Arbitrary State Killings: The judiciary has repeatedly held
that discretionary executive action cannot infringe upon constitutional safeguards. In
Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1962), the Supreme Court reiterated that personal
liberty cannot be curtailed except through valid legislation that adheres to constitutional
procedures.

12
MEMORIAL on behalf of the PETITIONER
 [3RD LBSNAA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025]

[¶ 18] Comparative Jurisprudence on Equality and Due Process: The U.S. Supreme Court in
Furman v. Georgia (1972) held that arbitrary and capricious imposition of the death penalty
violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Similarly, the South
African Constitutional Court in S v. Makwanyane (1995) abolished capital punishment on
the grounds that state executions disproportionately target marginalized communities.
These rulings highlight the global consensus against state-sanctioned killings absent judicial
oversight.
[¶ 19] Recommendations for Legal Reform: To ensure that Article 14 protections are effectively
upheld, the following measures are necessary:
a. Establishing independent judicial oversight for all police killings.
b. Amending criminal laws to impose strict liability on officers engaging in extrajudicial
executions.
c. Mandating real-time body camera surveillance to prevent unlawful use of force.

Thus, the extrajudicial killings in the present case violate Article 14 by depriving individuals
of legal recourse, selectively enforcing laws, and undermining the principles of equality and
due process. The Supreme Court must intervene to restore public faith in the rule of law.

C. Violation of Article 19: Chilling Effect on Free Speech

[¶ 20] Curtailment of Freedom of Speech Through Fear and Repression: The Constitution
guarantees freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). However, state-
sponsored violence against political activists, journalists, and critics fosters an environment
of self-censorship and fear, effectively curtailing public discourse. The use of police
encounters to silence opposition leads to a de facto suspension of democratic rights, as
citizens become hesitant to express dissenting views.
[¶ 21] Doctrine of Proportionality in Restricting Speech: The Supreme Court in Modern Dental
College and Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2016) held that any restriction on
fundamental rights must pass the test of proportionality. The use of extrajudicial killings as
a method of silencing dissent is neither necessary nor proportional, making it
unconstitutional. Restrictions on free speech must be the least restrictive means available,
but in the present case, the state has resorted to lethal force without considering alternatives.
[¶ 22] Use of Deadly Force Against Protesters Violates Constitutional Protections: Article 19(1)
(b) guarantees the right to peaceful assembly. The Supreme Court in Amit Sahni v.
Commissioner of Police (2020) ruled that the state has a duty to facilitate peaceful protests,
13
MEMORIAL on behalf of the PETITIONER
 [3RD LBSNAA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025]

not suppress them through force. The lethal suppression of political movements undermines
the democratic fabric of the nation. Additionally, the police's disproportionate use of force
violates the global standards of protest policing, as outlined in the United Nations Basic
Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms (1990).
[¶ 23] Violation of International Human Rights Standards: The International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which India is a signatory, mandates that states must
ensure freedom of expression without fear of retaliation. The UN Human Rights Committee
in General Comment No. 34 (2011) has explicitly ruled that threats and acts of violence
against journalists, activists, and critics of government policy are incompatible with free
speech rights. The police encounters in the present case have violated India's international
obligations by creating an atmosphere where journalists and activists fear for their safety.
[¶ 24] Judicial Precedents Protecting Protest Rights: The European Court of Human Rights in
Özgür Gündem v. Turkey (2000) held that state actions suppressing journalistic freedom
constitute a violation of free speech protections. Similarly, in Tinker v. Des Moines
Independent Community School District (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that state
authorities cannot suppress peaceful demonstrations without compelling justification. The
trend in global constitutional jurisprudence shows that freedom of speech cannot be
curtailed by executive action, especially through violent means.
[¶ 25] Legal Protections Against State Repression of Speech: The judiciary has repeatedly held
that fundamental freedoms cannot be arbitrarily curtailed. In S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan
Ram (1989), the Supreme Court ruled that restrictions on speech must be narrowly tailored
and must not disproportionately suppress fundamental freedoms. Furthermore, in Indian
Express Newspapers v. Union of India (1985), the Court emphasized that freedom of
speech is essential for maintaining transparency and accountability in governance. The
suppression of dissent through encounters directly violates these principles.
[¶ 26] Violation of the ‘Clear and Present Danger’ Test: The state cannot justify lethal force
against protesters unless there exists an immediate and substantial risk of public disorder. In
Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950), the Supreme Court held that mere criticism of
government actions does not constitute a valid ground for restricting speech. The use of
police encounters against dissenters clearly violates the ‘clear and present danger’ test, as
there was no imminent threat posed by those killed.
[¶ 27] Erosion of Democratic Accountability Through State Violence: The primary function of
Article 19 is to safeguard democratic participation. When police forces engage in targeted

14
MEMORIAL on behalf of the PETITIONER
 [3RD LBSNAA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025]

killings of political activists, journalists, and protesters, they undermine the fundamental
structure of constitutional democracy. The intimidation of journalists covering state
excesses further exacerbates the chilling effect, as observed in Sakal Papers v. Union of
India (1962), where the Supreme Court held that freedom of the press is integral to
democratic functioning.
[¶ 28] Comparative Jurisprudence on Free Speech and State Violence: The Inter-American Court
of Human Rights in Vélez Restrepo v. Colombia (2012) ruled that state violence against
journalists violates both free speech and the right to life. Similarly, in The Sunday Times v.
United Kingdom (1979), the European Court of Human Rights held that intimidation by the
state leading to self-censorship amounts to an unconstitutional restriction on press freedom.
The actions of the police in the present case parallel these violations, necessitating strict
judicial scrutiny.
[¶ 29] Use of Technology to Monitor and Suppress Free Speech: In recent times, state agencies
have increasingly used surveillance and digital tracking tools to monitor and restrict speech.
The Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) held that privacy
and free speech are interconnected rights, and any state surveillance leading to self-
censorship is unconstitutional. The weaponization of police encounters to silence social
media activists and bloggers violates both privacy and free speech rights.
[¶ 30] Criminalization of Dissent as a Form of Speech Suppression: The pattern of using
counterterrorism laws and sedition charges to justify extrajudicial killings of activists and
intellectuals has been widely criticized by human rights organizations. In Shreya Singhal v.
Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, ruling
that vague and arbitrary state action to criminalize speech is unconstitutional. However, the
police's reliance on extra-legal measures such as encounters to eliminate dissenters is even
more egregious, warranting urgent judicial intervention.
[¶ 31] State-Sanctioned Encounters as a Means of Political Suppression: Historically, authoritarian
regimes have used police killings to suppress political opposition. In India, the NHRC and
civil society organizations have documented cases where police encounters were
disproportionately used against individuals critical of government policies. The United
Nations Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Killings has repeatedly warned against the use
of fake encounters to create a climate of fear. Such trends directly contradict India's
constitutional commitment to democratic governance.

15
MEMORIAL on behalf of the PETITIONER
 [3RD LBSNAA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025]

[¶ 32] Preventive Mechanisms to Protect Free Speech: To uphold Article 19 protections, the
following reforms must be implemented.

a) Judicial oversight in all cases of police violence against protesters.

b) Strengthening legal protections for journalists covering protests.
c) Amending the Police Act to explicitly prohibit encounters as a means of controlling
dissent.
d) Establishing statutory commissions to investigate state suppression of dissent.
e) Mandatory police training on human rights standards.
f) Creation of a Special Tribunal for reviewing cases of extrajudicial killings linked to
suppression of free speech.

[¶ 33] Thus, the actions of law enforcement agencies in the present case violate Article 19 by
restricting free speech through lethal means, suppressing protests, and fostering a climate of
fear and self-censorship. It is imperative that the Supreme Court establishes strict judicial
accountability for police excesses to restore constitutional equilibrium.

ISSUE 2 - INVOCATION OF SECTION 163 AND THE USE OF FORCE

CONSTITUTE ABUSE OF POWER

A. Section 163 as an Instrument of Arbitrary and Unconstitutional State Action

[¶ 34] Unconstitutional Invocation of Section 163: The unfettered reliance on Section 163 to
justify the use of lethal force against civilians is constitutionally impermissible. The
provision, originally intended to impose curfews in times of public emergency, does not
authorize police executions. Any curtailment of fundamental rights must adhere to due
process, as established in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978). The use of Section 163
in the present case fails to satisfy the constitutional tests of reasonableness, necessity, and
procedural fairness.
[¶ 35] Exceeding the Intended Scope of Emergency Powers: Section 163, similar to Section 144 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), is meant for temporary public order regulation, not
permanent executive overreach. The Supreme Court in Gaurav Sureshbhai Vyas v. State of
Gujarat (2017) reaffirmed that emergency powers cannot be misused as a tool of

16
MEMORIAL on behalf of the PETITIONER
 [3RD LBSNAA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025]

oppression. Invoking Section 163 to justify extrajudicial killings sets a dangerous

precedent, paving the way for unchecked state violence.
[¶ 36] Violation of Article 21: Right to Life and Liberty: Article 21 categorically protects
individuals from arbitrary state action. The extra-legal executions under Section 163
amount to state-sanctioned killings without judicial oversight, violating constitutional
protections. The Supreme Court in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1980) stressed that
no person may be deprived of life except by procedure established by law. The lack of
independent investigation, accountability, and oversight renders these killings wholly
unconstitutional.
[¶ 37] Lack of Judicial Scrutiny in the Application of Section 163: Any restriction on fundamental
rights must undergo rigorous judicial scrutiny. The Supreme Court in A.K. Gopalan v. State
of Madras (1950) emphasized that state-imposed limitations must be examined through the
lens of necessity and proportionality. The failure of courts to intervene in this instance
highlights the lack of effective oversight mechanisms, thereby enabling the executive to
misuse emergency provisions without legal consequences.
[¶ 38] Historical Misuse of Emergency Powers in India: India has witnessed repeated abuse of
emergency provisions, particularly during the Emergency of 1975-77, when civil liberties
were curtailed. The misuse of Section 163 in the present case mirrors past instances where
legal provisions were used to justify executive overreach, signaling a regression in
constitutional governance.
[¶ 39] Violation of International Human Rights Standards: The United Nations Human Rights
Committee (UNHRC) has consistently ruled that the arbitrary use of emergency laws
violates international human rights norms. The European Court of Human Rights in Al-
Skeini v. United Kingdom (2011) held that states must ensure their use of force is subject to
strict legal controls. The misuse of Section 163 contradicts India’s obligations under the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
[¶ 40] Failure to Distinguish Between Civilian and Criminal Conduct: The lack of clear criteria for
determining whom Section 163 applies to has resulted in indiscriminate killings, making no
distinction between law-abiding citizens and those engaging in unlawful activities. This
raises serious constitutional concerns regarding equal treatment under the law.
[¶ 41] Comparative Legal Analysis of Emergency Powers: The United States Supreme Court in
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) limited the President’s ability to invoke
emergency powers, ruling that such powers must be strictly limited and exercised only

17
MEMORIAL on behalf of the PETITIONER
 [3RD LBSNAA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025]

when legislatively sanctioned. Similarly, the South African Constitutional Court in State v.
Makwanyane (1995) ruled that the use of lethal force under emergency conditions must
meet strict legal standards. The absence of such safeguards in India underscores the
unconstitutional nature of the present case.
[¶ 42] Encouragement of a Culture of Impunity: The Supreme Court has time and again held that
unchecked executive action fosters impunity. In Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families
Association v. Union of India (2016), the Court ruled that law enforcement officers cannot
take the law into their own hands. The failure to hold officers accountable for the misuse of
Section 163 undermines democratic accountability.
[¶ 43] Need for Urgent Legal Reform: Given the constitutional, judicial, and international
violations caused by the misuse of Section 163, it is imperative that Parliament either
amends or repeals this provision to prevent further human rights violations.

B. Disproportionate Use of Force and Violation of Fundamental Rights

[¶ 44] Failure to Follow Principles of Necessity and Proportionality: The doctrine of necessity and
proportionality requires that state action must be justified, minimal, and reasonable. The use
of force by the police under Section 163 fails this test as it disproportionately impacts
individuals without procedural safeguards. The Supreme Court in Om Kumar v. Union of
India (2000) held that restrictions on fundamental rights must be necessary and the least
intrusive means possible. In the present case, instead of using non-lethal methods like
negotiations or crowd control measures, the police resorted to direct executions, violating
this principle.
[¶ 45] Weaponization of Emergency Powers to Justify Extrajudicial Killings: Emergency powers,
when misused, become instruments of repression rather than tools for maintaining order.
The judiciary in Indibily Creative Pvt. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal (2019) ruled that
emergency provisions cannot be employed as a pretext for state-sanctioned violence. By
allowing law enforcement to circumvent legal processes through Section 163, the state
effectively endorses a parallel justice system that lacks accountability.
[¶ 46] Denial of Independent Investigations and Judicial Review: The Supreme Court in People’s
Union for Civil Liberties v. State of Maharashtra (2014) established that every police
encounter resulting in death must be followed by an independent investigation. However, in
the present case, the state failed to initiate any independent inquiries, thereby creating an
environment where law enforcement officers act with impunity. The absence of judicial

18
MEMORIAL on behalf of the PETITIONER
 [3RD LBSNAA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025]

scrutiny not only erodes the rule of law but also undermines public confidence in
constitutional governance.
[¶ 47] International Human Rights Violations: The United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of
Force and Firearms (1990) dictate that law enforcement must use force only when strictly
necessary and to the minimum extent required. The European Court of Human Rights in
Nachova v. Bulgaria (2005) ruled that states must ensure human rights compliance in all
cases of law enforcement action. The extrajudicial killings conducted under Section 163 fail
to meet these standards and directly violate India’s obligations under international law.
[¶ 48] Absence of Judicial Oversight in Emergency Policing: The Supreme Court has consistently
emphasized that the judiciary must oversee any use of excessive police force. In Extra
Judicial Execution Victim Families Association v. Union of India (2016), the Court ruled
that every police action resulting in death must be scrutinized under Article 21. However,
the lack of oversight in the present case indicates a deliberate attempt by the state to evade
legal accountability, creating a culture of lawlessness within law enforcement agencies.
[¶ 49] Use of Force Against Protesters Violates Democratic Norms: The Indian Constitution
guarantees the right to assemble peacefully under Article 19(1)(b). The use of unjustified
lethal force against protestors under Section 163 is unconstitutional and directly contradicts
the Supreme Court’s ruling in Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police (2020), which
reaffirmed that state action against peaceful demonstrators must be reasonable and
proportional. The criminalization of dissent through encounters not only undermines
democratic principles but also discourages civic engagement.
[¶ 50] Pattern of Unlawful Executions Without Transparency: The absence of transparency in
documenting, reporting, and reviewing encounters raises concerns of state complicity in
unlawful killings. The Supreme Court in Prakash Kadam v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta
(2011) stated that fake encounters amount to murder, and police officers involved must face
criminal prosecution. However, the lack of FIRs, post-mortem reports, and independent
oversight in the present case indicates systemic failure in upholding legal safeguards.
[¶ 51] The Role of Media and Suppression of Dissent: Free media plays a vital role in exposing
human rights violations, yet journalists and activists reporting on extrajudicial killings often
face intimidation and violence. The Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India
(2015) recognized the chilling effect state suppression has on free speech. The misuse of
Section 163 to deter media coverage and activism creates an environment of fear,
preventing independent scrutiny of state actions.

19
MEMORIAL on behalf of the PETITIONER
 [3RD LBSNAA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025]

[¶ 52] Preventing a Repeat of Police Excesses Through Institutional Safeguards: The lack of
structural safeguards enables repeated instances of excessive police action. The Supreme
Court in DK Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) emphasized that police accountability
mechanisms must be strengthened to prevent custodial violence and extrajudicial killings.
The failure to implement these safeguards under Section 163 has allowed police impunity
to flourish, necessitating immediate intervention.
[¶ 53] Failure of Government Accountability and Parliamentary Oversight: The legislative branch
has a duty to regulate executive actions, yet no parliamentary review has been conducted to
assess the misuse of Section 163. The Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India
(2017) ruled that arbitrary state action must be subject to legislative scrutiny to prevent
constitutional violations. The absence of accountability at both executive and legislative
levels exacerbates systemic failures, highlighting the urgent need for parliamentary
intervention.

C. Future Implications and the Need for Legal Reform

[¶ 54] Dangers of Misusing Emergency Powers: The misuse of emergency powers, as witnessed
in the present case, can erode democratic values and institutional accountability. The
Supreme Court in ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) demonstrated how emergency
provisions can be abused to suppress fundamental rights. Section 163, in its current form,
can be exploited to justify unchecked state violence, undermining constitutional supremacy
and the separation of powers doctrine.
[¶ 55] Judicial and Legislative Reforms Needed: The absence of robust legal safeguards within
Section 163 necessitates urgent legislative amendments. The Supreme Court in K.S.
Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) recognized the need for stringent limitations on state
actions affecting fundamental rights. Parliament must amend Section 163 to incorporate
safeguards such as mandatory judicial oversight, independent post-action review, and strict
proportionality standards to prevent misuse.
[¶ 56] Role of the Supreme Court in Safeguarding Constitutional Principles: As the guardian of
fundamental rights, the Supreme Court must establish guidelines to regulate the use of
emergency policing powers. In State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952), the Court
ruled that state actions must conform to constitutional principles of equality and non-
arbitrariness. Establishing a constitutional bench to review police encounters and the

20
MEMORIAL on behalf of the PETITIONER
 [3RD LBSNAA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025]

application of Section 163 will help in ensuring judicial accountability over executive
overreach.
[¶ 57] Creation of a Judicial Commission to Review State-Sanctioned Encounters: The absence of
an independent review mechanism for police encounters has led to widespread impunity.
The Supreme Court in People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. State of Maharashtra (2014)
directed that all police encounters must be subjected to an independent judicial inquiry. A
permanent commission must be set up under the supervision of the Supreme Court to
scrutinize encounters and recommend disciplinary actions against law enforcement officials
involved in extrajudicial killings.
[¶ 58] Comparative Constitutional Models for Regulating Emergency Powers: Several
jurisdictions have implemented safeguards to prevent executive misuse of emergency
powers:
a. The U.K. House of Lords in A v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (2004)
ruled that executive emergency actions must be proportionate and subject to judicial
review.
b. The U.S. Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006) held that executive actions
undertaken under emergency powers cannot violate fundamental due process
guarantees.
c. The South African Constitutional Court in S v. Makwanyane (1995) abolished the death
penalty on grounds that state-sanctioned executions violate human dignity.
Adopting a constitutional framework similar to these jurisdictions will ensure that
India’s emergency provisions, including Section 163, comply with international human
rights standards.
[¶ 59] Abolition of Blanket Immunity for Law Enforcement Officers: The current legal framework
grants excessive immunity to law enforcement officials involved in extrajudicial killings,
resulting in a culture of impunity. The Supreme Court in Prakash Kadam v. Ramprasad
Vishwanath Gupta (2011) ruled that fake encounters amount to murder and officers
involved must be prosecuted. The doctrine of sovereign immunity must not serve as a
shield for human rights violations, and a legal framework must be developed to ensure
individual accountability.
[¶ 60] Mandating Proportionality in All Cases of State-Imposed Force: The state must adhere to
the principle of proportionality in law enforcement actions. In Olga Tellis v. Bombay
Municipal Corporation (1985), the Supreme Court held that state actions infringing upon

21
MEMORIAL on behalf of the PETITIONER
 [3RD LBSNAA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025]

rights must be proportional to the harm sought to be prevented. The use of lethal force in
non-exceptional circumstances under Section 163 fails this test. Parliament must enact a
comprehensive use-of-force policy that prohibits arbitrary killings and ensures strict
liability for excessive police action.
[¶ 61] Public Accountability and Role of Civil Society Organizations: Civil society organizations
(CSOs) and human rights commissions play a crucial role in monitoring and reporting state
excesses. In PUCL v. Union of India (1997), the Supreme Court acknowledged that civil
society serves as a check on government abuse. Strengthening NHRC’s mandate to
investigate cases of extrajudicial killings, providing it with prosecutorial powers, and
encouraging public participation in accountability mechanisms will help curtail future
misuse of emergency powers.
[¶ 62] Ensuring the Right to Life as a Non-Derogable Right: The right to life under Article 21 is
non-negotiable, even during emergencies. The Supreme Court in Minerva Mills Ltd. v.
Union of India (1980) held that no state action can violate the basic structure of the
Constitution, including fundamental rights. The unrestricted use of Section 163 as a tool for
state-sponsored killings violates this principle and must be immediately addressed through
legislative intervention and judicial oversight.
[¶ 63] Establishing a National Framework for Regulating Police Conduct: There is no uniform
national policy governing police use of force, leading to inconsistent enforcement,
excessive force, and widespread violations of constitutional rights. The Supreme Court in
Naga People’s Movement v. Union of India (1997) stressed the need for codified standards
on state violence. A National Policing Standards Act must be enacted to regulate the use of
force, introduce independent oversight bodies, and establish disciplinary measures against
errant officers.

ISSUE 3 - ACCOUNTABILITY OF POLICE OFFICERS FOR EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLINGS AND

THE STANDARD OF PROOF APPLICABLE

A. Legal Principle and Accountability Framework

[¶ 64] Fundamental Right to Life and Due Process: It is humbly submitted that Article 21 of the
Constitution of India guarantees the right to life, which can only be deprived through a
22
MEMORIAL on behalf of the PETITIONER
 [3RD LBSNAA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025]

procedure established by law. The arbitrary execution of individuals in police encounters

without a fair trial violates the basic structure of constitutional governance. In Maneka
Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court held that any law that takes away life
or liberty must be just, fair, and reasonable. The actions of the police, which resulted in
extrajudicial killings, fall outside the constitutional parameters of legality and fairness.
[¶ 65] Extrajudicial Killings as Culpable Homicide and Murder: Under Sections 299 and 300 of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (akin to IPC 1860), any killing without judicial sanction
constitutes culpable homicide or murder. The Supreme Court in Prakash Kadam v.
Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta (2011) unequivocally ruled that police officers involved in
fake encounters should be given the death penalty, as it constitutes ‘murder by state
officials’. It is respectfully submitted that the acts of the police in the present case must be
treated as culpable homicide, and criminal proceedings must be initiated.
[¶ 66] Supreme Court’s Stance on Police Encounters: In People’s Union for Civil Liberties v.
State of Maharashtra (2014), the Supreme Court laid down 16 guidelines for the
investigation of police encounters, including mandatory registration of FIRs, independent
investigation, and judicial oversight. It is humbly submitted that the police in the present
case failed to comply with these mandatory requirements, rendering the entire encounter
operation illegal and unconstitutional.
[¶ 67] Command Responsibility and Higher Accountability Standards: The principle of command
responsibility, recognized in international and domestic jurisprudence, establishes that
senior officials can be held accountable for crimes committed by subordinates if they failed
to prevent or punish such acts. In State of Gujarat v. Kishanbhai (2014), the Supreme Court
emphasized that superior officers have a duty to ensure lawful conduct by their
subordinates. Therefore, DIG Kapil Chaturvedi must be held liable for his failure to prevent
or investigate these extrajudicial killings.
[¶ 68] Burden of Proof on the State: It is humbly submitted that the burden of proof in encounter
cases must be on the police, not the victims. The Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar v. State of
M.P. (2008) held that when state officials plead self-defense in cases of custodial deaths or
encounters, they must provide clear and convincing evidence of an imminent threat. The
failure of the police to provide such proof renders their justification baseless and legally
unsustainable.
[¶ 69] Role of Forensic and Documentary Evidence: It is respectfully submitted that the absence
of FIRs, independent witnesses, CCTV footage, post-mortem reports, or ballistic evidence

23
MEMORIAL on behalf of the PETITIONER
 [3RD LBSNAA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025]

weakens the state’s case and reinforces allegations of a staged encounter. In Nirmal Singh
Kahlon v. State of Punjab (2009), the Supreme Court emphasized that investigative
agencies must collect forensic and circumstantial evidence to prove allegations of self-
defense. The lack of such evidence in the present case indicates a deliberate attempt to
shield officers from accountability.
[¶ 70] Failure to Provide a Clear Chain of Custody for Evidence: It is humbly submitted that the
police have failed to establish a clear chain of custody for the alleged weapons recovered
from the deceased. In Suresh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2001), the Supreme Court held
that failure to preserve and document material evidence raises strong presumptions against
the state’s narrative. The missing forensic reports of weapons allegedly used by the
deceased in the present case raise serious doubts regarding the credibility of the police’s
claims.
[¶ 71] Use of Excessive Force Contrary to Legal Mandates: The use of lethal force by law
enforcement must comply with constitutional, statutory, and international standards. The
Supreme Court in K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) ruled that any form of custodial
violence or excessive force by police is unconstitutional and punishable under law. It is
respectfully submitted that the police officers in the present case acted beyond their lawful
authority by resorting to lethal force without exhausting non-lethal alternatives such as
negotiation or de-escalation tactics.
[¶ 72] Contradictory Statements from Law Enforcement Officials: The DIG Kapil Chaturvedi’s
contradictory accounts regarding the incident further discredit the police’s version of
events. In Jaya Mala v. Home Secretary, Government of J&K (1982), the Supreme Court
ruled that inconsistent government statements in cases involving fundamental rights
violations must be viewed with suspicion and investigated thoroughly. It is humbly
submitted that a neutral fact-finding body must scrutinize these inconsistencies to ascertain
the truth.
[¶ 73] Failure to Adhere to Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) in Encounters: The National
Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has established Standard Operating Procedures
(SOPs) for law enforcement agencies during encounters, including mandatory
documentation, immediate medical assistance to injured suspects, and post-incident
magisterial review. The police’s failure to adhere to these SOPs in the present case suggests
a deliberate violation of established legal safeguards, reinforcing the allegation of
extrajudicial killings.

24
MEMORIAL on behalf of the PETITIONER
 [3RD LBSNAA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025]

[¶ 74] State’s Duty to Uphold International Human Rights Commitments: India is a signatory to
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which mandates that no
individual shall be deprived of life arbitrarily, and that all allegations of state violence must
be impartially investigated. The Supreme Court in Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families
Association v. Union of India (2016) ruled that state-sanctioned violence must be examined
under strict human rights obligations. It is submitted that the failure to initiate an
independent inquiry into the present case violates India’s international legal commitments.
[¶ 75] Need for a Permanent Independent Oversight Body to Monitor Encounters: It is respectfully
submitted that a permanent independent oversight mechanism must be established to
monitor and investigate encounter killings in India. The Supreme Court in Paramvir Singh
Saini v. Baljit Singh (2020) held that continuous judicial oversight is necessary to prevent
abuse of police powers. In light of the recurring incidents of extrajudicial executions, it is
submitted that a National Commission for Encounter Accountability should be constituted
to review and report on all police killings on an annual basis.

B. Countering State Justifications and Failure to Follow Legal Procedures

[¶ 76] Failure to Prove Self-Defense: It is humbly submitted that the police claim of self-defense
is unsubstantiated and lacks independent verification. The state has failed to produce
credible forensic evidence that the deceased were armed or had engaged in any hostile
action. In Sajjan Kumar v. CBI (2018), the Supreme Court ruled that inconsistencies in
official narratives indicate fabrication and warrant strict judicial scrutiny. Given the absence
of corroborating evidence, the self-defense claim must be treated with skepticism.
[¶ 77] Violation of the Supreme Court’s Encounter Guidelines: The police’s failure to adhere to
the Supreme Court’s guidelines in PUCL v. State of Maharashtra (2014) renders their
actions presumptively illegal. The police failed to:
a. Register an FIR against the officers involved.
b. Conduct an independent magisterial inquiry.
c. Preserve crucial evidence such as body cam footage, weapons, or post-mortem reports.
d. Subject the case to judicial review before closing the investigation.
It is respectfully submitted that failure to comply with these guidelines invalidates the
police’s justification for the killings and shifts the burden of proof onto the state.
[¶ 78] Contradictory Statements from Law Enforcement Officials: It is humbly submitted that
DIG Kapil Chaturvedi’s inconsistent accounts weaken the credibility of the police’s
25
MEMORIAL on behalf of the PETITIONER
 [3RD LBSNAA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025]

justification. While initial reports suggested that the deceased were armed and retaliating,
subsequent statements indicated that some victims were unarmed civilians. The Supreme
Court in Jaya Mala v. Home Secretary, Government of J&K (1982) held that contradictions
in official statements raise a presumption of fabrication and must be investigated
impartially.
[¶ 79] Absence of Independent Verification of the Encounter: It is submitted that no independent
verification was conducted to corroborate the police’s claims. In State of Maharashtra v.
Bharat Shantilal Shah (2008), the Supreme Court held that any deprivation of life must be
independently reviewed to prevent arbitrary state action. The lack of judicial or third-party
verification of the events leading to the killings further invalidates the police’s version of
events.
[¶ 80] Failure to Comply with the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) Guidelines: The
NHRC mandates that all cases of police encounters must be independently investigated and
that families of the deceased must be provided access to inquiry reports. In Paramvir Singh
Saini v. Baljit Singh (2020), the Supreme Court ruled that failure to adhere to NHRC
guidelines renders state action unconstitutional. Since no NHRC report was filed or
investigation conducted in the present case, it is submitted that the actions of the police
officers are illegal.
[¶ 81] Lack of Forensic and Medical Evidence to Support the Police Narrative: The absence of
autopsy reports, ballistic analysis, or medical examination of the deceased raises serious
doubts about the authenticity of the police’s claims. In Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of
Punjab (2009), the Supreme Court held that forensic evidence is critical in determining the
legitimacy of state actions. The failure to produce such evidence in the present case
suggests a deliberate cover-up by law enforcement authorities.
[¶ 82] Failure to Secure Crime Scene and Maintain Chain of Custody: It is humbly submitted that
the police failed to preserve the crime scene, which is a fundamental requirement in any
legitimate investigation. In Suresh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2001), the Supreme Court
held that failure to secure and document evidence weakens the state’s case and raises strong
presumptions against its narrative. The lack of a clear chain of custody for the alleged
weapons recovered from the deceased in the present case raises serious doubts regarding
their authenticity.
[¶ 83] Use of Lethal Force Without Exploring Non-Lethal Alternatives: The United Nations Basic
Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms (1990) require that law enforcement officers

26
MEMORIAL on behalf of the PETITIONER
 [3RD LBSNAA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025]

use lethal force only as an absolute last resort. The Supreme Court in K. Basu v. State of
West Bengal (1997) ruled that state agents must exhaust all peaceful and non-violent
measures before resorting to lethal force. It is respectfully submitted that police officers in
the present case failed to explore non-lethal methods such as warnings, negotiation, or
restraint, thereby violating both domestic and international legal standards.
[¶ 84] Failure to Conduct an Immediate Judicial Inquiry: It is respectfully submitted that police
encounters must be subjected to immediate judicial scrutiny. In State of M.P. v.
Shyamsunder Trivedi (1995), the Supreme Court held that whenever a death occurs due to
police action, an independent judicial inquiry must be conducted immediately to ensure
impartiality. The absence of such an inquiry in the present case undermines the legitimacy
of the police's justification and indicates a deliberate attempt to evade accountability.
[¶ 85] Lack of Compliance with International Human Rights Law: India is a signatory to the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which mandates that state
actors cannot arbitrarily deprive individuals of their right to life. In Extra Judicial Execution
Victim Families Association v. Union of India (2016), the Supreme Court ruled that India’s
obligations under international human rights law require independent scrutiny of all
allegations of state-sponsored killings. It is respectfully submitted that the failure to initiate
an independent investigation into the present case constitutes a violation of India's
international legal commitments.
[¶ 86] Lack of Police Accountability Encourages a Culture of Impunity: The failure to prosecute
police officers involved in extrajudicial killings leads to systemic violations of human
rights. The Supreme Court in Prakash Kadam v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta (2011) held
that fake encounters constitute murder and police officers involved must face the full force
of the law. It is humbly submitted that the non-prosecution of the accused officers in the
present case will encourage a dangerous precedent, leading to further state-sponsored
killings.
[¶ 87] Need for Legislative Reforms to Prevent Future Extrajudicial Killings: It is submitted that
the legal framework governing police encounters must be reformed to introduce stricter
safeguards against abuse. The Supreme Court in Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India
(2018) ruled that systemic failures in law enforcement require immediate legislative
intervention to prevent future violations. It is respectfully submitted that Parliament must
enact a National Encounter Accountability Act, mandating body camera evidence,
independent oversight mechanisms, and automatic judicial inquiries for every police killing.

27
MEMORIAL on behalf of the PETITIONER
 [3RD LBSNAA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025]

C. Relief Sought and Need for Systemic Reforms

[¶ 88] Establishment of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) for Independent Inquiry: It is humbly
submitted that a court-monitored Special Investigation Team (SIT) must be constituted to
investigate the officers involved in these extrajudicial killings. The Supreme Court in
Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018) mandated independent SIT investigations in
cases where state actors were accused of serious crimes. Given the failure of local agencies
to act impartially in the present case, a neutral, high-level investigative body must be
assigned to ensure transparency and fairness.
[¶ 89] Immediate Arrest and Suspension of Accused Officers: In Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar
(2014), the Supreme Court held that officers accused of serious crimes must be arrested to
prevent tampering with evidence and obstruction of justice. It is humbly submitted that the
immediate suspension and arrest of police officers responsible for these killings must be
ordered to ensure a fair and impartial trial. The principle of accountability in custodial and
extrajudicial deaths requires that no official involved in such actions be permitted to
continue in their position while under investigation.
[¶ 90] Judicial Oversight in Police Encounters: It is respectfully submitted that a judicial
magistrate must oversee the investigation and review all evidence, including forensic
reports, ballistic tests, and autopsy findings. The Supreme Court in People’s Union for Civil
Liberties v. State of Maharashtra (2014) emphasized that judicial oversight is crucial in
encounter cases to prevent executive impunity. The present case warrants urgent judicial
intervention to ensure due process and rule of law are upheld.
[¶ 91] Reversal of Burden of Proof on the State: It is humbly submitted that the burden of proof in
extrajudicial killings must rest on the state rather than the victims’ families. The Supreme
Court in State of M.P. v. Shyamsunder Trivedi (1995) held that state officials accused of
custodial violence bear a higher burden of proof due to their authoritative position and
access to evidence. In the present case, where the police claim self-defense without
verifiable evidence, it must be presumed that the killings were unlawful unless proven
otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt.
[¶ 92] Mandatory Implementation of Body Cameras and Surveillance Technology: It is
respectfully submitted that the use of body-worn cameras by police officers should be made
mandatory to document encounters in real time. The Supreme Court in Paramvir Singh
Saini v. Baljit Singh (2020) directed that CCTV surveillance must be installed in all police
stations and interrogation centers to prevent human rights violations. A similar directive
28
MEMORIAL on behalf of the PETITIONER
 [3RD LBSNAA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025]

should be extended to police operations outside police stations, ensuring real-time

accountability during encounters.
[¶ 93] Institutional Reforms in Law Enforcement Agencies: It is humbly submitted that structural
and policy reforms within law enforcement agencies are necessary to curb the rampant
misuse of police powers. In Naga People’s Movement v. Union of India (1997), the
Supreme Court called for institutional safeguards against police excesses. The present case
illustrates the urgent need for reforms such as enhanced training in human rights law, non-
lethal crowd control techniques, and strict disciplinary actions against officers involved in
fake encounters.
[¶ 94] Legislative Framework for Regulating Police Encounters: It is submitted that India lacks a
specific statutory framework governing police encounter, leading to arbitrary and
inconsistent enforcement of legal provisions. The Supreme Court in Tehseen Poonawalla v.
Union of India (2018) directed Parliament to enact laws addressing state-sponsored
violence. It is humbly submitted that a comprehensive Encounter Accountability Act should
be enacted, mandating immediate FIR registration, independent forensic audits, and court-
monitored investigations in all cases of police killings.
[¶ 95] Compensation and Rehabilitation for the Families of the Deceased: The Supreme Court in
D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) held that compensation must be provided to
victims of custodial violence as part of the state’s duty to uphold fundamental rights. It is
respectfully submitted that the families of the deceased in the present case must be awarded
compensation, including financial support, rehabilitation, and access to legal aid to pursue
justice.
[¶ 96] Prosecution of Senior Officials Under the Principle of Command Responsibility: The
principle of command responsibility, as upheld in State of Gujarat v. Kishanbhai (2014),
establishes that senior officers can be held liable for failing to prevent or punish human
rights violations committed by their subordinates. It is humbly submitted that DIG Kapil
Chaturvedi, being the commanding officer, must be held accountable for his inaction in
preventing these extrajudicial killings and for issuing orders that enabled the same.
[¶ 97] Independent Monitoring and Reporting Mechanism for Police Encounters: The
establishment of an independent monitoring body to record and report all police encounters
nationwide is imperative. In Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association v. Union
of India (2016), the Supreme Court directed that all encounter deaths must be reported to
higher judicial authorities and subject to independent review. It is respectfully submitted

29
MEMORIAL on behalf of the PETITIONER
 [3RD LBSNAA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025]

that a National Police Encounter Monitoring Commission should be created, tasked with
publishing annual reports on police encounters, ensuring transparency and accountability.
[¶ 98] Repeal or Amendment of Laws That Enable Impunity: It is submitted that provisions within
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita that provide excessive immunity to police officers must be
repealed or amended to ensure accountability. The Supreme Court in Prakash Kadam v.
Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta (2011) ruled that state immunity cannot be a defense for
police excesses and that officers responsible for fake encounters must face prosecution
under regular criminal law. In the present case, legislative intervention is necessary to
prevent blanket immunity for law enforcement agencies.
[¶ 99] Strict Compliance with International Human Rights Norms on the Use of Force: India is a
signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and must
comply with global standards on the use of force by law enforcement officials. The
Supreme Court in Nandini Sundar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2011) held that state actions
must align with international human rights obligations. It is respectfully submitted that the
Supreme Court must direct the government to incorporate international best practices into
national policing policies to prevent future instances of extrajudicial executions.

ISSUE 4 - WHETCOUNTERS CAN BE JUSTIFIED IN THE INTEREST OF MAINTAINING

PUBLIC ORDER, OR IF IT UNDERMINES THE RULE OF LAW AND CONSTITUTIONAL
PROTECTIONSHER THE STATE GOVERNMENT’S DEFENSE OF POLICE ?

A. Legal Principles and Constitutional Mandates

[¶ 100] The State’s Obligation to Uphold Constitutional Values: It is humbly submitted that the
government’s primary duty is to uphold the rule of law and constitutional values rather than
defend illegal actions committed by state authorities. Article 21 guarantees the right to life,
which cannot be arbitrarily taken away under the pretext of maintaining public order. In
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court held that state actions must be
just, fair, and reasonable, failing which they are unconstitutional. Any attempt by the state
to justify police excesses under the guise of maintaining public order violates the
fundamental principles of constitutional democracy.
[¶ 101] Article 32 and the Right to Constitutional Remedies: It is humbly submitted that Article 32
guarantees the right to constitutional remedies and allows citizens to challenge state
30
MEMORIAL on behalf of the PETITIONER
 [3RD LBSNAA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025]

excesses. In Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that any
attempt by the state to shield its officials from legal scrutiny undermines constitutional
remedies and must be struck down. The government’s defense of the police encounters not
only obstructs judicial oversight but also denies affected families their legal right to seek
redress.
[¶ 102] Public Order Concerns Cannot Justify Unlawful State Action: The Supreme Court in A.K.
Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) held that the state cannot justify lawlessness in the name
of maintaining public order. It is respectfully submitted that law and order must be
maintained within constitutional boundaries, and the government cannot justify
extrajudicial killings as a preventive measure. It is imperative to distinguish between
legitimate state authority and arbitrary state violence, as the latter erodes public trust and
weakens democratic institutions.
[¶ 103] The Supreme Court’s Stance Against State-Sanctioned Violence: In D.K. Basu v. State of
West Bengal (1997), the Supreme Court ruled that the state has an obligation to prevent
custodial violence and police excesses. It is humbly submitted that the government’s
attempt to justify police encounters directly contradicts the Court’s rulings that mandate
procedural safeguards to prevent abuse of power. Failure to prosecute officials involved in
extrajudicial executions creates a culture of impunity that further emboldens state
authorities to operate outside the constitutional framework.
[¶ 104] Institutional Bias and Lack of Independent Investigation: The government’s reluctance to
initiate an independent inquiry indicates institutional bias and an attempt to shield officials
from accountability. The Supreme Court in People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. State of
Maharashtra (2014) held that failure to conduct independent inquiries in cases of police
encounters violates fundamental rights and enables impunity. The absence of judicially
monitored investigations weakens the credibility of state institutions and erodes public
confidence in the rule of law.
[¶ 105] Public Outrage as an Indicator of State Misconduct: It is humbly submitted that nationwide
protests and public outcry against the police encounters reflect a broader concern about the
misuse of state power. The Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) held
that public dissent is a crucial component of democracy and must be considered in
evaluating the legitimacy of state actions. The government’s failure to respond to public
concerns and implement corrective measures indicates a broader structural failure that must
be addressed through judicial intervention.

31
MEMORIAL on behalf of the PETITIONER
 [3RD LBSNAA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025]

[¶ 106] The Role of Separation of Powers in Preventing Executive Overreach: The doctrine of
separation of powers, as upheld in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), mandates
that the executive branch must function within the limits prescribed by the Constitution. By
defending unlawful police encounters, the state government is violating the principle of
checks and balances and allowing the executive branch to function without accountability.
The judiciary must intervene to prevent such encroachments on constitutional governance.
[¶ 107] State Responsibility Under International Human Rights Law: It is humbly submitted that
India is a signatory to international treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights (ICCPR), which mandates that state actors must be held accountable
for unlawful killings. In Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association v. Union of
India (2016), the Supreme Court ruled that India’s international legal obligations require
independent investigations into cases of state-sponsored killings. The government’s refusal
to initiate such inquiries violates India’s commitments under international human rights
law.
[¶ 108] Failure to Adhere to the Basic Structure Doctrine: The basic structure doctrine, as
formulated in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), ensures that certain
fundamental principles, including rule of law and judicial review, remain inviolable. By
defending unconstitutional actions of the police, the government directly undermines the
basic structure of the Constitution, making its justifications legally unsustainable.
[¶ 109] Government’s Duty to Protect Citizens, Not Endanger Them: The state is duty-bound to
protect the rights and liberties of individuals rather than endorse unconstitutional state
actions. In Nandini Sundar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2011), the Supreme Court held that the
state cannot deploy excessive force or justify human rights violations in the name of
counterinsurgency or law enforcement. The government’s stance in the present case
contradicts its constitutional mandate to safeguard citizens against arbitrary state action.
[¶ 110] Undermining Judicial Oversight in Cases of State Violence: The failure of the government
to ensure proper judicial oversight in cases of extrajudicial killings directly undermines
constitutional protections. The Supreme Court in Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India
(2018) held that when the state shields its officials from legal scrutiny, it violates
constitutional norms and compromises the judiciary’s role as the ultimate arbiter of justice.
The lack of judicial review in the present case suggests a deliberate attempt to evade
accountability, making the government's justification legally untenable.

32
MEMORIAL on behalf of the PETITIONER
 [3RD LBSNAA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025]

[¶ 111] Need for Immediate Judicial Intervention to Restore Public Confidence: It is respectfully
submitted that judicial intervention is necessary to prevent further erosion of constitutional
values and restore public faith in the legal system. The Supreme Court in Minerva Mills
Ltd. v. Union of India (1980) held that the judiciary must act as a safeguard against
executive overreach to maintain the balance of power within the constitutional framework.
Given the state government’s failure to uphold constitutional mandates, it is imperative that
the judiciary takes suo motu cognizance of the matter and directs corrective measures to
uphold the rule of law.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, IN LIGHT OF THE FACTS, ISSUES, AND ARGUMENTS ADVANCED, IT IS MOST

HUMBLY PRAYED BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT THAT IT MAY BE PLEASED TO:

1. Declare that the police encounters in the present case are unconstitutional and
violative of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India.
2. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent State to initiate an independent,
court-monitored investigation into the alleged extrajudicial killings and prosecute the
officers involved.
3. Declare that the defense of such encounters by the State Government is
unconstitutional and violative of fundamental rights and the rule of law.
4. Direct the Respondent State to provide adequate compensation to the families of the
victims of these extrajudicial killings.

And/or Pass any other Order, Direction, or Relief that it may deem fit in the best interest of

JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.

All of which is humbly and respectfully submitted.

COUNSELS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

33
MEMORIAL on behalf of the PETITIONER