TC-13

NATIONAL MOOTCOURT COMPETITION 2024

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF INDRAPRASTHA

WRIT JURISDICTION

UNDER THE ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDICA

WRIT PETITION NOS: /2024

IN MATTER OF

SOCIETY FOR INDEPENDENT PRESS ...................... APPELLANT

VS.
STATE OF INDRAPRASTHA............................................................ RESPONDENT

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANIONS JUSTICE
OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF INDRAPRASTHA

~MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT~

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................................... 3

LIST OF ABBREVITIONS ................................................................................................ 6

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ................................................................................... 7

STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................... 8

STATEMENT OF ISSUES .................................................................................................. 10

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ............................................................................................11

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ................................................................................................ 13

ISSUE 1- WHETHER THIS WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE

THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT?............................................................................... 13

[1.1] Whether the subject matter of writ petition falls within the purview of Article 226 and
has locus standi or not?....................................... 14

ISSUE 2- WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE POLICE HAS VIOLATED THE

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF ‘FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION’
GAURANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 19 OF THE CONSTITION?......................17

[2.1] Whether the police action was justified by legitimate concerns for
national security and public order?..................................18
[2.2] Whether the action of the police enjoy a presumption of regularity and
legality?............................................................................................ 19
ISSUE 3- WHETHER THE SEIZURE OF LAPTOPS AMD MOBILE PHONES
OF JOURNALISTS IS IN VIOLATION OF ‘RIGHT OF PRIVACY’?...............21

[3.1] Balancing right to privacy with law enforcement need

[3.2] Question of preservation of evidence vs right to privacy

PRAYER……………………………………………………………………………. 26

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT 2|Page

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES REFFERED
N.R Trade Union Congress v. U.T. Puducherry, 2019 Madras HC ....................................................... 15
1. Indian Sugar Mill Association v. Secretary to Govt. UP Labour Department, AIR 1951 ALL 1 ........ 15
2. A.C Mukherji & Others v. UOI & Others, 1972 (1) LLJ 297 Cal ..................................................... 15
3. Calcutta Tram Mazdoor Sabha v. State of West Bengal & Others, 2022 Cal HC .............................. 15
4. Justice K.S Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr v. UOI & Others, AIR 2017 SC 4161 ................................ 14
5. Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam & Others, 2011 (3) SCC 377 .......................................................... 18
6. R. Rajagopal v. State of TN, 1994 (6) SCC 632 ............................................................................. 19
7.Subrahmanyam Swami v. UOI, 2016 ............................................................................................... 20
8. Gobind v. State of MP, 1975 SCC (2) 148 ....................................................................................... 19
9. Tufan Singh v. State of TN, 2013 (16) SCC 31 ................................................................................ 24
10. People’s Union of Civil Liberty v. UOI, 1997 SC 568 ..................................................................... 21
11. State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Narayan Mardikar, AIR 1991 SC 207......................................... 23
12. State of UP v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 AIR SC 865 ........................................................................ 23
13. State of Kerala v. Mathai Verghese, AIR 1986 SC 444 .................................................................... 23
14. Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi, AIR 1950 SC 129 ........................................................................ 24
15. Re Ram Leela Maidan Incident, 2012 ........................................................................................... 21
16. State of Maharashtra v. Bhart Shanti Lal Shah, 2008 (13) SCC 5..................................................... 22
17. State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh 1999 (6) SCC 172 ....................................................................... 22
18. P. Singh v. UOI, AIR 2006 SC 316............................................................................................... 24
19. State of Gujarat v. Anirudh Singh, AIR 1997 SC 2780 .................................................................. 24
20. Prabir Purkayastha v. NCT Delhi (2023) .........................................................................................23
21. Selvi v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2010 SC 1974 ............................................................................. 24
22. Maneka Gandhi v. UOI, AIR 1978 SC 597 ................................................................................... 17
23. State of Madras v. V.G. Row, AIR 1952 ....................................................................................... 18
24. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 740 .............................................................. 20
25. Goodwin v. United Kingdoms, 1996 ............................................................................................. 19

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT 3|Page

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

26. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 ............................................................................. 20

27. D.K.Basu v. State of West Bengal,AIR 1997................................................................................. 19
28. Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh ,AIR 1962 SC 1295 ...........................................................13
29. Ammur v. France, ECHR 1996-III .................................................................................................. 14
30. A R Antulay v. R S Nayak ,AIR 1988 ........................................................................................... 14
31. State of Rajasthan v. G. Chawla, AIR 1959 SC 544 .....................................................................16
32. Common Cause v. UOI, AIR 1999 SC 2979 ................................................................................ 16

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT 4|Page

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

STATUTES
1. THE CONSTITUTION OF INIDA ,1950
2. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ,1950, ARTICLE 226
3. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA , 1950, ARTICLE 14
4. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA , 1950, ARTICLE 19(1)(a)
5. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA , 1950, ARTICLE 19(2)
6. THE INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860
7. THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE 1973
8. THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT 1872
9. THE UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES ( PREVENTION ) ACT, 1967
10. THE CUSTOM ACT 1962
11. THE OBSCENE PUBLICATION ACT 1965

ONLINE NEWS ARTICLES / DATABASES

1 @MANUPATRA INFORMATION SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.

2 @INDIAN KANOON .COM

3 @LEXIS NEXIS .COM

4 @LIVE LAW .COM

BOOKS
1. DURGA DAS BASU
2. J.N. PANDEY
3. M.P JAIN, LEXIS NEXIS,8TH EDITION

4. NARENDER KUMAR, ALLAHBAD LAW AGENCY ,10THEDITION

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT 5|Page

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

LIST OF ABBREVITIONS

1 UAPA Unlawful activities (Prevention) Act, 1967

2 AIR All India Reporter

3 SC Supreme Court

4 HC High Court

5 Anr Another
6 Art Article

7 S. Section

8 Hon’ble Honorable

9 i.e. That is

10 Ltd. Limited
11 No. Number

12 Ors. Others

13 SCC Supreme Court Cases

14 SCR Supreme Court Report

15 IPC The Indian Penal Code

16 V. Versus

17 Cr.PC The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

18 IEA The Indian Evidence Act, 1872

19 UOI Union of India

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT 6|Page

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble High Court of Indraprastha has the jurisdiction to hear the present petition
Under Article 226 of The Constitution of Indica

Article 226 of The Constitution of Indica

“Power of High Courts to issue certain writs- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in
article 32 every High Court shall have the powers, throughout the territories in relation to
which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate
cases, any government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs
in nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, certiorari or any of
them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other
purpose”

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT 7|Page

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The Republic of Indica is one of the leading economies and the world’s biggest democracy which
caters the world’s largest population with different cultures, customs, languages, religion, casts and
ethnicity by upholding the principles in diversity. The people of Indica cherish the values enshrined
in its constitution which is the world’s largest and voluminous Constitution, drafted by their
forefathers after the attainment of their Independence from theBritishers. The constitution of Indica
guarantees fundamental rights to its people/citizens which is based on the principles of equality,
liberty, fraternity and justice. The people of Indica adore democratic principles and always strive for
a more democratic, liberal and transparent system of governance.

2. ‘News Flick’ is an online news portal which is run by a leading journalist Mr. Prashanto Roy. Mr.
Roy is accompanied by more than thirty journalists in the registered office of the online news portal
News Flick which has its registered office in the city of Indraprastha, theCapital of Indica.

3. Recently the online news portal had been running story revealing the failure of the government
policies and questioning regarding the transparency of the funding received by different political
parties. In a recent story, the portal had criticized the latest amendments to the Post Office Bill,2023
and the Telecommunications Bill, 2023 and called it authoritative, arbitrary, and in breach of right to
privacy. The portal in short had been performing its journalistic duties.

4. At the dawn of 3rd October 2023, a special cell of the Indraprastha police held searches at the
office of the news portal News Flick and journalist associated with it. The searches were
conducted at different sites of the news portal, among those raided were News Flick editor- in-
chief Mr. Prashanto Roy who is a well-known and renowned figure in the media world. During
the raid his personal laptop, mobile phone and some other electronic and documentary data had
been seized by the police.
5. Some of the other journalists who were remotely associated with the news portal were also
raided and taken to the special cell’s office in Indraprastha for further interrogation. The police
also recovered dump data from laptops and mobile phonesof some journalists.

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT 8|Page

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

6. Several opposition leaders, press bodies and civil society members gathered at the Press Club
of Indica to register their protest against the state and condemned the police action and called it
an attack on the freedom of press.

7. On the other hand, the Indraprastha police has defended its action on the basis of a case
registered during the previous month under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
Act,1967 and Section 153A (promoting enmity between two groups), 120B (Criminal
Conspiracy) of the Indica Penal Code,1860 and also claimed that the action has been taken on
the strong evidence of money laundering.

8. An association of media bodies and journalist trade union named as ‘Society for independent
Press’ has filed a writ petition in the Hon’ble High Court of Indraprastha seeking immediate
intervention of the court in the police action against News Flick. The petitioner has also
contended that the police action is arbitrary and violative of the fundamental right i.e. right to
privacy.

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT 9|Page

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE 1- WHETHER THIS WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE

THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT?

[1.1] Whether the subject matter of writ petition falls within the purview of Article 226 and has locus
standi or not?

ISSUE 2- WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE POLICE HAS VIOLATED THE

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF ‘FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION’
GAURANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 19 OF THE CONSTITION?

[2.1] Whether the police action was justified by legitimate concerns fornational
security and public order?
[2.2] Whether the action of the police enjoy a presumption of regularity andlegality?

ISSUE 3- WHETHER THE SEIZURE OF LAPTOPS AMD MOBILE PHONES

OF JOURNALISTS IS IN VIOLATION OF ‘RIGHT OF PRIVACY’?

[3.1] Balancing right to privacy with law enforcement need.

[3.2] Question of preservation of evidence vs right to privacy

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT 10 | P a g e

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. The present writ petition is not maintainable

It is humbly submitted by the counsel on behalf of the respondent that the writ petition filed by the
Society of independent press is not maintainable before the honorable high court as under Article 226 of
the Indian constitution. That only the aggrieved person whose individual rights have been violated can
move the present petition for redressal. The trade union has no locus standi to file a writ petition as the
aggrieved party whose interest has been directly affected are the journalists of News flick. The relief
claimed in the writ does not relate to any trade union right but relates to individual rights and grievances
of the journalists.

2. The actions of the police have not violated the fundamental right of freedom to
speech and expression guaranteed under article 19.

It is humbly submitted by the counsel on behalf of the respondent that the actions of the Indraprastha
police have not violated the fundamental rights as it comes within the ambit of UAPA, 1967. The
actions were lawfully and constitutionally valid to combat the legitimate concerns warranting state
intervention. Thereafter right to privacy is not an absolute right and falls within the permissible
restrictions mentioned under Art.19(2) of the constitution. There is a need for balancing the individual
privacy rights with the legitimate concerns of the state making state intervention necessary when
required. Thereafter the police acted within their lawful authority and followed due process in
conducting the raid and seizing evidences.

3. The seizure of laptops and mobile phones of journalists is not in violation of right to privacy

It is humbly submitted by the counsel on behalf of the respondent that the seizure of laptops and
mobile phones of journalists is not in violation of right to privacy as such seizure was based on a case
registered under UAPA,1967 and such seizure was necessary to safeguard the public order. There is a
need to incorporate a balance between power of investigation and obligation to uphold privacy right

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT 11 | P a g e

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

of individuals. Thereafter the seizure was done in accordance with the provisions of the constitution
and there was no abuse of power by law enforcement authorities while conducting the raid and
seizing personal belongings for interrogation purpose. Such actions were in accordance with the
established legal procedure and on credible evidences of money laundering, criminal conspiracy,
promoting enmity between two groups and unlawful activities.

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT 12 | P a g e

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE

HIGHT COURT OF INDERPRASTA OR NOT?

1. It is humbly contended before this Hon’ble High Court of Indraprastha that the writ petition
filed by the petitioner seeking immediate intervention of court in the police action against
News flick is tenable in the eyes of law and thereby the present writ petition is not
maintainable. the police actions were conducted within the bounds of law and were aimed at
investigating serious criminal offenses.

2. The police actions were necessary and proportionate responses to safeguard public safety and
nationalsecurity and thus did not amount to a violation of fundamental rights. In Kharak
Singh V. State of Uttar Pradesh1, the supreme court recognized that the right to privacy is
a fundamental right but held that it was not absolute right and could be restricted by law in
the interest of public order and national security. H.L.A. Hart2 says:” Legal rights, such as
right to freedom of speech are not absolute but subject to limitations that are necessary in a
democratic society”. Harts’ perspective highlights the need to balance individual rights and
societal interests. The restrictions are justified because of the legitimate concerns such as
national security and public order

3. According to the landmark judgement of K.S. Puttaswamy and Others V. UOI3 the right to
privacy of an individual is an essential aspect of dignity and it enables individual to retain
the autonomy of body and mind however since no legal right can be absolute, even a
fundamental right to privacy has limitations which can be identified on case-to-case basis
and any incursion of privacy by state or non-state actors must satisfy triple test of legality.
Puttaswamy established the three-fold test for testing whether any state action violates the
fundamental right to privacy. The three criteria to be met are: 'legality', 'need', and
'proportionality’. Similarly considering the facts and circumstances of the case the online
portal Newsflick did not pass the triple test of legality. The actions of the special cell were
in accordance with the constitution and no fundamental right has been breached.

1
AIR 1962 SC 1295
2
Source-
3
AIR 2017 SC 4161

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT 13 | P a g e

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

4. As right to privacy has certain limitations which justifies the actions of the state so no legal
right has been infringed which makes the writ petition not maintainable before the Hon’ble
High Court of Indraprastha.

5. The right to privacy is subject to certain limitations as specified under article 19(2) that says -
Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or
prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable
restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of
the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with
Foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court,
defamation or incitement of offence.”

[1.1] Whether the subject matter of writ petition falls within the purview of Article 226
and has locus standi or not?

6. It is humbly submitted that the police actions primarily involve criminal investigations and
law enforcement which are distinct from matters falling withing the realm of writ
jurisdiction. The European court of Human rights in Amuur V. France4 held that the right
to petition does not extend to challenging police investigations or decisions to prosecute. In
A.R. Antulay V. R.S. Nayak5 the supreme court emphasized that exercise of article 226
jurisdictional is discretionary and should not encroach upon areas properly falling within
the domain of other authorities.

7. “The constitution was not intended to furnish the means for every person to air his grievances
before the judiciary”.6 Joseph Story's perspective emphasizes the limitations of judicial
review and need for standing requirements to prevent frivolous litigation. Hence it can be
said that the petitioners lack the requisite standing to challenge the police action and their
grievances do not warrant judicial intervention .

4
ECHR 1996-III
5
AIR 1988 SC 1531
6
Papers.ssrn.com

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT 14 | P a g e

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

8. . Though Art. 226 of the constitution makes no mention as to who shall apply for a writ to be
placed before the high court, only those persons whose interests are directly affected by the
statute or order can apply for redress under Art 226 7 -
Notwithstanding anything in article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the
territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including
in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including
writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warrantor and certiorari, or any
of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.[(1-
A) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government,
authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to
the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such
power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such
person is not within those territories."; was inserted after 15th Amendment][Editorial comment-The
Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963, this was amended to include clause (1A). It states
that the High Court, whose territorial jurisdiction the cause of action originates under, may also
have the ability to issue directives, orders, or writs to any government, authority, or person, even if
their seat or place of abode is beyond the high court’s territorial jurisdiction.](2)The power
conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person
may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within
which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding
that the scat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those
territories.

It is previously cited that the writ petition by trade union cannot be entertained in order to redress
individual grievances.8 Accordingly, the petitioner “society for independent press” which is a trade
union has no locus standi to file a writ petition in order to entertain individual grievances.

9. It is contended before this Hon’ble Court that the petitioner as an ordinary member of the trade
union has no locus standi to challenge the order until and unless their interests are directly
affected.9 If the relief claimed in the writ petition does not relate to any trade union right but
relates to individual rights the writ petition may be disposed of accordingly.10 Thereafter
therewas no procedural infirmity or violation of fundamental /constitutional provisions.

7
Indian Sugar Mills Association v. Secretary to Govt. U.P. Labour Dept. AIR 1951 ALL 1
8
N.R. Trade Union Congress v. UT Ponducherry (2019) Mad. HC
9
A.C. Mukherjee & Ors. v. UOI & Ors. (1972) ILLJ 297 CAL
10
Calcutta Tram Mazdoor Sabha v. State of W.B & Ors. (2022) CAL H.C.

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT 15 | P a g e

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

10. The writ petition is without merit and lacks legal stand and the writ petition is not liable to be
entertained for the relief which has been prayed for by petitioner and is not maintainable before
the Honorable high court of Indraprastha. The journalists associated with Newsflick lack a direct
legal interest in the alleged police actions. While they may have professional interests in
reporting on such matters, their role as journalists does not confer standing to challenge the law
enforcement activities.

11. In State of Rajasthan V. G. Chawla11 the supreme court held that mere academic or journalistic
interests are not sufficient to establish locus standi in matters of public interest litigation. The
raid conducted by the police, while disruptive to news flicks operations, does not constitute a
direct injury to the petition themselves.

12. Thereafter it can be said that the petitioners’ allegations of being targeted by the ruling dispensation
are speculative and lack concrete evidence. Without substantiated claims or direct interference or
victimization the petitioners standing to challenge the respondents’ actions is weakened. In Common
Cause V. UOI12 the supreme court cautioned against entertaining speculative or conjectural claims in
public interest litigation and stressed the importance of factual substantiation.

13. It is humbly submitted that the present petition is not filed by the aggrieved persons whose rights are
said to have been violated but filed by some associations and trade unions who do not have the locus
standi because a writ petition can only be filed by somebody whose rights are said to have been
violated.

11
State of Rajasthan v. G. Chawla
12
Common cause v. UOI AIR 1999 SC 2979

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT 16 | P a g e

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

Issue 2: Whether the action of the police has violated the fundamental right of
freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under article 19 (2) of the
constitution of Indica?

14. It is humbly submitted that unlike the American Constitution, our constitution does not a separate
provision providing for freedom of press. In the words of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar- “The press has no
special rights which are not to be exercised by citizen in his individual capacity. The editor of a
press or the manager are merely exercising the right of expression, and, therefore, no special
mention is necessary of the freedom of press.”13 From the words of Dr. Ambedkar, it is clear that
our constitution makers wanted the press to not have any special privileges as such and be at par
with the ordinary citizens so that the reasonable restrictions could be imposed on them.

15. It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble high court that while freedom to speech and expression
is a fundamental right it is still subject to certain reasonable restrictions under sec. 19(2) of the
Indian constitution. The actions of the police were aimed at investigating serious criminal offenses
such as money laundering and promoting enmity between groups and were not intended to curtail
legitimated journalistic activities. In Maneka Gandhi V. UOI14 the supreme court held that the
right to freedom of speech and expression is not absolute and can be restricted by law in the
interest of public order, morality and the sovereignty and integrity of India.

16. It is humbly submitted that the police actions were conducted in response to credible allegations of
serious criminal offence including promoting enmity between groups and money laundering,
warranting swift and decisive law enforcement action. Upholding national security and public order
is paramount in the face of potential threats posed by unlawful activities, terrorism and social unrest,
justified proactive measures of the police to prevent harm to the society. The police action was
carried out with due regard for procedural safeguards and over-site mechanisms including judicial
review to prevent abuse of power and protect individual rights while fulfilling the states duty to
maintain law and order.

13
Constituent Assembly Debates Vol. VII
14
AIR 1978 SC 597

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT 17 | P a g e

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

[2.1] Whether the police action was justified by legitimate concerns for national
security and public order?

17. In a precedent case15 the supreme court of India examined the constitutionality of certain provisions of
UAPA ,1967 particularly section 3(1) and 3(5) the court upheld the validity of these provisions
emphasizing the need for stringent measures to combat terrorist activities and safeguard national
security. Herein the actions taken by the police under the UAPA,1967 were lawful and
constitutionally valid just as the court upheld it necessary to combat terrorism. The police action
against Newsflick and its journalists were justified in the interest of maintaining public order and
preventing unlawful activities:

A) The police action was taken in response to genuine concerns regarding potential threats to
national security as evident by alleged involvement of journalists in activities such as
promoting enmity between groups, criminal conspiracy and strong evidences of money
laundering.

B) The actions of the police are subject to judicial scrutiny and any excess or violation of rights
can be addressed through appropriate legal channels rather than invalidating the entire police
action.

18. Upholding public order and preventing criminal activities are essential for safeguarding the
rights and safety of the citizens. In State of Madras V. V.G. Row16, the supreme court held that
reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and expression are permissible if they are aimed at
maintaining public order and preventing lawlessness.

19. One of the greatest legal minds in India Nani Palkhivala emphasized the importance the importance
of balancing individual rights with societal interests, stating that “The constitution is not a mere
lawyer document, it is a vehicle of life and its spirit is always the spirit of age. Other legal scholars
such as Fali S. Nariman have emphasized the need to strike a balance ensuring access to justice and
preventing the misuse of legal processes to obstruct law enforcement activities.

15
Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam & Ors. 2011 (3) SCC 377
16
AIR 1952 SC 196

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT 18 | P a g e

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

20. Thereafter the press freedom and right to privacy are important, the alleged violations are specific to
individual cases and do not raise broader systematic issues necessitating judicial intervention. The
European court of human rights in Goodwin V. United Kingdom17 emphasized the importance of
balancing press freedom with other legitimate interests such as protection of reputation and national
security.

[2.2] Whether the action of the police enjoy a presumption of regularity and legality?

21. It is humbly submitted that the police action against Newsflick and its journalists conducted
under UAPA,1967 is justified in context of combating activities that threaten national security
or public order.18 The supreme court has recognized the importance of balancing privacy rights
with freedom of press that is while individuals have a right to privacy this right must be
balanced against public right to know particularly in cases involving matter of public interest of
concern.19

22. Though the individuals including journalists have a right to privacy this right may be limited in cases
where public interest or national security is at stake. The police action against Newsflick and journalists
if conducted in pursuit of such interests it may be justified even if it involves some intrusion into their
privacy. Thereafter there was an urgent need to balance individual privacy rights with legitimate
concerns of the state in matters of surveillance and investigation20. The actions of the law enforcement
agencies are regular and lawful. The police acted on the basis of credible evidence and in accordance
with the provisions of the law, including the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, and the Indian Penal
Code.
23. In D.K. Basu V. State of West Bengal21, the supreme court emphasized the importance of
upholding the rule of law and ensuring that law enforcement agencies act in accordance with legal
procedures and safeguards. The concerns regarding the chilling effect on law enforcement activities
if the petitioners standing is accepted without sufficient legal interest or injury is mandatory as
allowing standing based solely on professional or academic interests could unduly impede legitimate
law enforcement efforts

17
28975/95 of 2002 Grand Chamber Court
18
(2008) 12 SCC 5
19
R. Raj Gopal v. State of TN (1994) 6 SCC 632
20
Govind v. State of M.P AIR 1975 SC 1378
21
1997 (1) SCC 416

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT 19 | P a g e

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

24. The impact doctrine or the principle of inevitable effect or inevitable consequence stands in
contradistinction to abuse or misuse of a legislation or a statutory provision depending on the
circumstances of the case. Keeping in mind the prevailing conditions of the case and the
principle of proportionality, the actions of the special cell were necessary to maintain public
order and duly follow the procedure established.22

25. Thereafter the police actions were aimed at safeguarding the integrity of the ongoing
investigation into serious criminal offences like money laundering, criminal conspiracy etc.
Allowing unrestricted reporting on such matters could jeopardize the effectiveness of law
enforcement efforts and compromise public safety. In State of Uttar Pradesh V. Raj Narain23,
the supreme court recognized the importance of protecting legitimate law enforcement activities
and ensuring that the dissemination of sensitive information does not impede ongoing
investigations.

26. There are certain forms of speech such as hate speech or speech that incites violence and are not
protected under freedom of speech and expression. The police actions were necessary and done
in lawful manner to prevent dissemination of harmful speech that could threaten human safety
and societal harmony. In Ram Manohar Lohia V. State of Bihar24, the supreme court held that
restrictions on freedom of speech and expression are justified if they are aimed at preventing
harm to individuals or society. Thereafter it can be said that to ensure public order and safety
the police actions were necessary and done in accordance with the prevailing law and order.

27. It is humbly submitted that the actions by the Indraprastha police were taken against person who
were involved in some illegal activities and not against the press. The action was justified
because the news portal could have incited an offence and in order to stop that from happening,
the police conducted surprise raid on all the offices and journalists connected with the news
portal together. The action was very well under the reasonable restriction of security of state and
public order provided under Article 19(2).

22
Subramanyam Swami v. UOI (2016)
23
AIR 1975 SC 865
24
AIR 1966 SC 740

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT 20 | P a g e

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

ISSUE 3: Whether the seizure of laptops and mobile phones of the journalists is in
violation of right to privacy?

28. It is humbly contended before the Hon’ble High Court of Indraprastha on behalf of the respondent
that the police action was conducted in accordance with established legal procedure and is based on
credible evidence of serious criminal offences such as promoting enmity between groups and money
laundering. The present evidences of specific allegations indicate unlawful activities linked to News
flick or its journalists along with legal provisions authorizing law enforcement action in such cases.

29. The police action was conducted with due regard for procedural safeguard and oversight
mechanisms to prevent abuse of power25 and protect individuals right including judicial review.
The police action was consistent with the evidence and in accordance with the procedural
requirement such as searching and conducting investigations in a transparent manner. There are
several provisions which can be found in the statutes that give the enforcement agencies powers
to seize personal property in public interest and for national security:

30. THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 sec 102 of crpc empowers the police
officers to seize any property that they suspect is either stolen or constitutes evidence of an
offence. This includes personal devices such as mobile phones computers or storage devices if
they are believed to contain evidence relation to a criminal investigation

31. THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 sec 65(b)deals with the admissibility of electronic
evidence in court. It lays down the conditions under which electronic records, including data
from personal devices may be admitted as evidence. seizing personal devices to collect
electronic evidence in compliance with the procedure outlined in the Indian evidence act can
support the admissibility of such evidence in court

23
32. In a precedent case Re Ram Leela Maidan Incident the Delhi high court, it upheld the
seizure of personal devices such as mobile phones and laptops from protesters who were alleged
to have incited violence during a protest at ram Leela maidan the court considered the seizure of
these devices as necessary for the investigators into the incident and deemed it lawful under the
provisions of Crpc.
25
People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. UOI AIR 1997 SC 568
26
Re Ram Leela Maidan Incident 2012

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT 21 | P a g e

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

33. The electronic evidences collected through the seizure of computers and other digital services is
admissible in court if it meets the requirements of authenticity and relevance under the Indian
evidence act as stated in State of MH V. Bharat Shanti Lal Shah 27

34. While the right to privacy is constitutional protected in India, there are circumstances where the
seizure of personal devices may be lawful and necessary for criminal investigations or maintain
public order, however it is essential for law enforcement agencies to adhere to procedural
safeguards and respect individuals right during the seizures and subsequent handling of personal
devices28.

35. Thereafter the seizure of electronic devices was conducted lawfully with proper authorization such
as search warrants and adhere to procedural safeguards. The police were acting within their lawful
authority to gather evidence in course of a criminal investigation and thus in the process not right
to privacy was violated.

[3.1] Balancing right to privacy with law enforcement need .

36. To uphold national security and public order is a paramount concern especially in the face of
potential threats posed by unlawful activities and social unrest justifying proactive measures to
prevent harm to society. The present case provides evidences of specific security threats or
incidents that prompted the police action along with examples of broader societal impact of
preventing or disrupting criminal activities. “Courts must be sensitive to the plight of the
vulnerable and marginalized sections of society”-Justice D.Y. Chandrachud. It’s the chief justice
of India's view that the role of the courts in protecting the rights of the marginalized and ensuring
access to justice for all. While the petitioner may have a professional interest in the case, they do
not represent the interests of the vulnerable or marginalized groups whose rights may have been
violated.

27
2008 (13) SCC 5
28
State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999)

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT 22 | P a g e

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

37. The seizure of electronic devices was necessary for gathering evidence related to serious
criminal offenses. Louis Brandeis famously stated that “the right to privacy is the right to be let
alone. It is the most valued by civilized men.” However, the right is not absolute and must be
weighed against other societal interests.

38. The police actions serve the public interest by safeguarding the rule of law promoting
accountability and maintaining public trust in law enforcement agencies outweighing a
temporary limitation on press freedom or privacy right. These regulations of search and seizure
had been framed in the interest of general public and public order and enables the police to
discharge its duties in a more effective manner.29 Such seizure is justified in the interest of public
order and preventing greater harm to the society as the case was registered on evidences of
unlawful activities, promoting enmity between two groups, criminal conspiracy and money
laundering. In a precedent case30 the court held that the seizure of election materials by a
government during an election could be justified if there were legitimate concerns about
maintaining public order and the integrity of the electoral process.

39. In certain other cases like State of M.H. V Madhukar Narayan31 the seizure of obscene
material under the provision of the Obscene Publications Act 1965, the SC upheld the legality of
such seizures emphasizing states interest in regulating materials deemed obscene to protect
public morality. The seizure of printing press machinery and material used for printing alleged
defamatory publications was upheld by the HC of Kerela.32 The court ruled that such seizures
were justified in interest of public order and preventing the dissemination of objectionable
material. Herein the seizure of laptops and mobile phones of the journalists in accordance with
the procedural legalities and it was necessary to prevent greater harm to the society.

29
Prabir Purkayastha V. State NCT of Delhi (2023)
30
State of UP v. Raj Narain AIR 1975 SC 865
31
AIR 1991 SC 207
32
State of Kerela v. Mathai Verghese AIR 1986 SC 444

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT 23 | P a g e

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

[3.2] Question of preservation of evidence vs right to privacy

40. Right to privacy as a fundamental right is not an absolute right as it is subject to reasonable
restrictions. It is significant to incorporate a balance between power of investigation and
obligations to uphold privacy right of individuals.33

41. It is an established principle and can be restricted in the interest of public order, defamation,
incitement to an offence and acts as a limitation on freedom of press34 Art 19(2)-
Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the
State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of
the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the
security of the State, friendly relations with Foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in
relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence

42. Right to privacy is said to be subservient to security of state 35Many statutes have mentioned the
seizure of computer and electronic devices for investigation like in The Customs Act, 1962, The
Obscene PublicationAct,1965 etc. The legality of such seizures emphasis the state interest in
regulating public order and morality. In a case the SC of India upheld the seizure of a computer
by customs authorities for examination to determine if contained objectionable material. The
court held that such seizures was permissible under the Customs Act 1962 and did not violate the
petitioners’ fundamental rights36

43. Herein the actions of the police also come under procedural safeguards and do not violate any
fundamental rights of the journalists. The seizure of laptops and mobile phones was essential for
preserving potential evidence relevant to the ongoing criminal investigation. Law enforcement
agencies have a duty to gather and preserve evidence, which may require temporary restrictions
37
on individual rights, including right to privacy. In Selvi V. State of Karnataka , the supreme
court recognized the importance of preserving evidence in criminal investigations and held that

33
Tufan Singh v. State of T.N 2013 (16) SCC 31
34
Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi AIR 1950 SC 129
35
State of Gujrat v Anirudh Singh AIR 1997 SC 2780
36
P Singh v. UOI AIR 2006 SC 316
37
Selvi v. State of Karnataka AIR 2010 SC 1974

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT 24 | P a g e

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

certain restrictions on individual rights may be justified in the interest of justice. While the
journalists play a crucial role in uncovering information of public interest ,including matters of
governance and policy, the seizure of electronic devices does not unduly infringe upon their ability
to perform their professional duties. The police were targeting specific evidence related to alleged
criminal activities, rather than obstructing journalistic investigations.

44. In Goodwin V. United Kingdom, the European court of human rights recognized the importance of
protecting journalistic sources but emphasized that this protection is not absolute and may be subject to
limitations in certain circumstances.

“Thereafter wherever law ends, tyranny begins. “Locke’s philosophy underscores the necessity of
law and limits on government power to prevent tyranny. The police actions were lawful and aimed at
upholding public safety and order, rather than encroaching on individual rights,

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT 25 | P a g e

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

PRAYER

Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited may this Hon’ble
court be pleased to declare/adjudge/hold/uphold that:

A. HOLD THAT, the writ petition filed under section 226 of the Constitution of
Indica, before the Hon’ble High Court of Indraprastha is not Maintainable.
B. HOLD THAT, the action of the police has not violated the fundamental right
of ‘freedom of speech and expression’ guaranteed U/A 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution of Indica.
C. HOLD THAT, the seizure of laptops and mobile phones of journalists is not a
violation of right of ‘Right to Privacy’ guaranteed U/A 21 of the Constitution
of Indica.

AND/OR

Pass any other Order, Direction, Relief that it may deem fit in the Best Interests of Justice,
Fairness, Equity and Good Conscience.

For this act of Kindness, the Respondent shall duty bound forever

(S/d)
(Counsels for the Respondents)

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT 26 | P a g e