University of Kashmir

Moot court Memorial 2024

Enrolment No: - 20042128016

Semester BA. LLB 7th Semester

Memorial on behalf of petitioner

1|Page
_______________________________________________________________
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
_______________________________________________________________

Mr. Rahul Thakur …………….Petitioner

V.
Union of India …………….Respondent
_______________________________________________________________

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

Sopore Law College, Seer Road, Sopore, Baramulla

Memorial on behalf of petitioner

2|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBRIEVATIONS ………………………………………………....4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................ 5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .................................................................... 6

STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................... 7

STATEMENT OF ISSUES .................................................................................. 8

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ......................................................................... 9

ARGUMENTS ADVENCED ............................................................................ 11

PRAYER ........................................................................................................... 14

Memorial on behalf of petitioner

3|Page
LIST OF ABREVATIONS

AIR All India reporter

Cr.P.C Criminal Procedure code

J. Justice

Hon’ble Honourable

UAPA Unlawful Activities Prevention Act

Ltd. Limited

FIR First Investigation Report

No. Number

Memorial on behalf of petitioner

4|Page
 Index of Authorities

Case Laws

Subramanian Swami v C B I AIR 2005 SC 797.

Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam, (2011) 3 SCC 377

Indra Das v. State of Assam, (2011) 3 SCC 380

State of Kerala v. Raneef, (2011) 1 SCC 784

Romesh Thapper v State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 124.

A.K Gopalan v State of Madras AIR 1950 SC27.

Books referred

1. M. P. Jain Indian constitutional law, (LexisNexis, 8th edition 2022)

2. Prof. S. N. Mishra Indian penal code, (central law publications, 23rd
edition 2023)
3. Mulla commentary on the code of Criminal Procedure 1973, (Delhi law
house 20th edition 2021)
4. S.C Sarkas The Code of Criminal Procedure,(LexisNexis 12th edition
2020)

Statutes Referred

1. The Unlawful Activities prevention Act, 1967(Act 37 of 1967)

Online database

1. www.uollb.com (last visited on 5 june,2024)

2. www.indiankanoon.org (last visited on 12 june,2024)
3. www.legalservices.com(last visited on 20 june,2024)
4. www.iipleaders.com (last visited on 2 july,2024)

Memorial on behalf of petitioner

5|Page
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The petitioner has approached this Honourable Court under Article 32, of the
constitution of India. The respondents have appeared before this honourable
supreme court of India and response to the petition filed by the petitioner.

Article 32:

Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

1. The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the
enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
2. The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or
writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus,
prohibition, quo warrant and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate,
for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.
3. Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by
clauses (1) and (2), Parliament may by law empower any other court to
exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction ill or any of the powers
exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).
4. The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as
otherwise provided for by this Constitution.

Memorial on behalf of petitioner

6|Page
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. On 12 June 2022 Mr Rahul Thakur participated in anti CAA protest in

Shaheen bagh Delhi.
2. He gave an aggressive speech against the government of India many
people would listen to him
3. Mr Rahul Thakur gave provocative slogans and created an apprehension
of law and order problem.
4. Although Mr Rahul Thakur Appealed the crowd to protest peacefully,
there were incidents of stone pelting while the protesting people were
marching towards jantar mantar.
5. The stone pelting resulted in injury of many police men .In retaliation
police fired several tear gas shells and rubber bullets in addition to lathi
charge resulting in injury of many people including women and children.
6. Soon after the incident took place an FIR was filed against Mr Rahul
Thakur under section 10 and 13 of UAPA and 120B of IPC.
7. The police arrested Mr Rahul Thakur on 14 June 2022.Since then he is
detained in Tihar jail Delhi .The case was filed in the Supreme Court of
India challenging the validity of UAPA on the grounds of being vocative
to the constitution of India.

Memorial on behalf of petitioner

7|Page
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1. Does the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act violates Article 14, 19, 21
and 22 of the Indian Constitution?
2. Does Section 10 and 13 of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act are
constitutionally valid?

Memorial on behalf of petitioner

8|Page
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Issue no. 1:

Does the UAPA violates article 14, 19, 21 and 22 of the Indian constitution?

ARTICLE 14

It is humbly submitted before the honourable Supreme Court that article 14 of

Indian constitution provides equality before law and equal protection of law.
While under UAPA, there is an excessive and irrational treatment done towards
the individuals thus the honourable court is pleased to look over through the
eyes of principle of natural justice that is justice, equity and good conscience
which has lost its existence because of UAPA and which in connection also
violates the sight of article 14.

ARTICLE 19

It’s humbly submitted before the honourable Supreme Court Article 19 of the
Indian Constitution provides for freedom of speech and expression and UAPA
in this contrast due to its excessive use and due to the literal interpretation of
section 10 0f UAPA LEADS TO THE VIOLATION OF Article 19 and 21 of
the Indian
Constitution.

ARTICLE 21

Its humbly submitted before the honourable supreme Court the Article 21 of the
constitution provides for the right to life and personal liberty and prescribes that
no one can be deprived of his life and personal liberty except to procedure
established by law, article 21 in its wider sense also provides for the speedy trial
and UAPA in its excessive use of power violates this basic paramount right.
Under UAPA even to get bail one has to prima facie prove their innocence in
the bail hearing, which is an exception to the general philosophy of bail.

ARTICLE 22

Its humbly submitted before the honourable Supreme court According Article
22 of the Indian constitution there is a constitutional protection against arrest
and detention it stipulates that every person has a right to know the reasons of
arrest in case he is arrested as quickly As feasible but here under UAPA This

Memorial on behalf of petitioner

9|Page
right to know the cause of arrest is violated in major of the cases thus its humbly
pleased to the honourable supreme court that UAPA under excessive use of its
provisions violates this fundamental right to know the reasons of arrest in almost
all the cases pleaded under UAPA .

Issue no. 2

Does section 10 and 13 of UAPA are constitutionally valid or not?

Summary of arguments:

Section 10 and 13 of UAPA violates fundamental rights and are constitutionally

invalid. The UAPA was enforced with the aim of controlling terrorism but this
act can’t deprive citizen’s right to liberty and freedom of speech and expression.

Memorial on behalf of petitioner

10 | P a g e
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Issue no 1:
Does UAPA violates article 14, 19, 21 and 22of the Indian constitution?

ARTICLE 14:
It is humbly submitted before the honourable Supreme Court that article 14 of
Indian constitution provides equality before law and equal protection of laws,
in my case the petitioner participating in a protest raised some slogans and had
been alleged of given anti-social slogans by giving arbitrary effect to the
provisions of UAPA
The counsel on behalf of the petitioner most humbly submits that in a
democratic country like India, every citizen is having equality in respect of
Natural, social, civil, political, economic, and legal.
It is clear from the above statement that Mr, Rahul Thakur who gave a speech
that is nowhere against the security and integrity of the state, and thereby his
detention on false grounds leads to the violation of equality before law and
equal protection by law under article 14 of the Indian constitution . The
honourable Supreme Court in the case of Subramanian swami v CBI held that
it is the duty of state under Article 14 of the Indian constitution to provide for
the protection of equality before law for all, and no particular person shall be
denied from this provision protected under article 14 of the constitution.
ARTICLE 19:
SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT;
1. Freedom of speech and expression ,
2. Right to assemble peacefully and without arms.
3. Right to form associations and unions.
4. Right to move freely throughout the territory of India.
5. Right to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India.
6. To practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or
business,
Your honour as the constitution gives right to protest that is inalienable right
guaranteed under article 19 of the constitution, thus it’s clear that nobody
can be deprived from doing so if the grounds are reasonable, therefore it is
pleased before the honourable court that Mr, Rahul Thakur did so within the
provisions of law. The honourable court in case of Romesh Thapper v. State
of Madras a person can be restrained from protesting only where the act is
threat to the public order and danger to the security of state.
Memorial on behalf of petitioner

11 | P a g e
ARTICLE 21:
Article 21 States that ‘Protection of life and personal liberty. No person shall be
deprived of his life and personal except according to the procedure established
by law, your honour article 21 is considered as the heart of fundamental rights,
in my case the counsel on behalf of respondent has a strong contention that
Article 21 makes it clear that everyone has a right to live with dignity and
respect ,but Mr Rahul Thakur has been deprived from his life and personal
liberty by getting arrested on non-reasonable grounds.
In the case of A.K Gopalan vs the state of madras, the court has held that article
21 provides for the protection of personal liberty and life as its soul ingredient.

ARTICLE 22:
Article 22 provides protection against arrest and detention in certain cases It,
also provides for the protection of personal liberty, your lordship its humbly
submitted that Mr Rahul Thakur has been detained unlawfully over
unreasonable grounds , the effect given to the provisions of UAPA is arbitrary
in violation of article 21 of the constitution .
The honourable court in the case of A.K Gopalan v. state of Madras, the validity
of the UAPA has been challenged over the contention that it violates the
fundamental right provided under article 22 as the protection against arrest and
runs in the violation of it by giving enough force to the provisions of UAPA.

ARGUMENT ADVANCED
Issue no 2:
Does section 10 and 13 of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act are
constitutionally valid?
Supreme Court: In a matter relating to Unlawful Activities Prevention Act,
1967 (‘UAPA’), a Full-Judge Bench comprising of MR Shah, CT Ravikumar
and Sanjay Karol, JJ. Overruled its 2011 order in Arup Bhuyan v. State of
Assam, and judgments in Indra Das v. State of Assam, and State of Kerala v.
Raneef, further upheld Section 10(a)(i) of UAPA. In all the aforesaid cases, the
two-Judge Bench comprising of Markandeya Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra, JJ.
held that mere membership of a banned association is not sufficient to constitute
an offence under the UAPA or the Terrorism and Disruptive Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1987 unless it is accompanied with some overt violence.
Later, in Arup Bhuyan, on an application by the Union seeking reference on the
ground that the interpretation of Central legislations was given without hearing

Memorial on behalf of petitioner

12 | P a g e
the Union, the Two-Judge Bench of Dipak Misra and AM Sapre, JJ. Referred
the matter to a larger bench. The Court said that in the 2011 Judgments the
question of the Constitutionality of the provisions of UAPA was not is issue, as
they were mere bail applications. Further, the bench observed that when
Parliamentary legislation is read down in the absence of the Union, enormous
harm would be caused to the State if they are not heard. Further, if the language
of a Section is plain and clear and the validity of the Section is not in question,
then reading down is not permissible. The Court also said that the bench in the
2011 Judgments has referred to the United States cases without relying on
Indian cases which is not suitable, as the difference in the nature of laws
between the two countries must be considered when taking guidance from US
Supreme Court decisions. The Court further said that the Section 10(a) (i)
UAPA has been enacted in furtherance of the interest of sovereignty and
integrity of India, and these are grounds of the reasonable restrictions under
Article 19. Thus, the Court held that Section 10(a)(i) is in harmony with the
fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(2) of the Constitution of
India, thus, agrees with the objectives of UAPA.

Memorial on behalf of petitioner

13 | P a g e
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS

ADVANCED, AUTHORITIES CITED IT’S HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT
THIS COURT MAY BE PLEASED;

1. To declare that UAPA violates Article 14,19,21,22 of the Indian

constitution.
2. To declare that as UAPA is nowhere to preventive detention and does
not act as a reasonable restriction to the fundamental rights guaranteed
under Indian constitution, Or pass any other order ,direction ,or relief
that this honourable court may deem fit in the interest of justice, equity
and good conscience.

All of rich is humble prayer.

Counsel for Petitioner

Junaid Ahmed

Memorial on behalf of petitioner

14 | P a g e