BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA

Public Interest Litigation No. ____/2021

CLUBBED WITH

Writ Petition No.____/2021

Modern Legal Research Centre & Ors. ………………………………………………Petitioners

versus

Registrar, Supreme Court of Indiana………………………………………………..Respondents

Written Submission on behalf of the respondents

Counsels for the respondents

Name of the college: Kerala Law Academy Law College

Name of university: Kerala University

Name of participants: Lekshmi Ramesh

Arya M A

Sharmada S
 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………….…….3

STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………...................5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION …………………………………………6

STATEMENT OF ISSUES……………………………………………………6

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS………………………………………………7

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED………………………………………………..8-19

1. THE PIL PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION

OF INDIANA IS NOT MAINTAINABLE
2. THE SELECTIVE HEARING OF ANAY NAWAAMI’S WRIT PETITION
DOES NOT AMOUNT TO VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF
THE PETITIONERS UNDER ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIANA.
3. SELECTIVE HEARING DOES NOT VIOLATES ARTICLE 21 OF THE
CONSTITION OF INDIANA

BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………..19

PRAYER………………………………………………………………….……….20

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

1. ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, A.I.R 1976 S.C. 1207.

2. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, A.I.R. 1950 SC 27
3. A.R. Antulay v. R.S Nayak AIR 1988 SC 1531
4. A.V. Venkateshwaran v. R.S.Wadhwani AIR 1961 SC 1906
5. Andhra Industrial Works v. Chief Controller of Imports and Ors, AIR 1974 SC 1539
6. Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. The state of Maharashtra and Ors., Criminal Appeal
no: 743, 744 of 2020.
7. Asst. Collector of Central Excise v. Jainson Hosiery AIR 1979 SC 1889
8. BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of India (2002) 2 SCC 333
9. Babu Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1978 SC 527
10. Bishan Das v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1961 SC 1570
11. Charanjith Lal Chowdhury v. Union of India AIR 1951 SC 41
12. Danial Latifi v. Union of India (2001) 7 S.C.C. 740.
13. Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union v. Union of India,(1981) 2 S.C.R. 52
14. Food Corporation of India vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries, AIR 1993 SC 1601
15. Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi & Ors, 1981
A.I.R. 746.
16. Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr, (1975) 2 S.C.C. 148.
17. Gurunadha Reddy v. A.P. Road Transport Corporation, A.I.R. 1999 AP 179.
18. Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee v. C.K Rajan and Ors (2003)7 SCC 546
19. Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna, A.I.R. 1979 SC 1369.
20. Janta Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary AIR 1993 SC 892
21. Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 S.C.C. 569.

22. Kartar Singh v. State of U.P. A.I.R. 1963 SC 1205.

23. Kazi Lhendup Dorji v. Central Bureau of Investigation 1994 3 SCR 201
24. Khoday Distillereries v. Registrar General ,Supreme Court of India (1996) 3 SCC 114
25. Lachmandas v. State of Bombay, AIR 1952 SC 239
26. M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006) 8 S.C.C. 212.
27. Madras City Wine Merchants' Association and Ors. v. State of T.N. and Ors., (1994)
5 S.C.C. 509
28. Maganbhai v. Union of India , AIR 1969 SC 783

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

 4

29. Maganlal Chaganlal v. Municipal Corpn., Greater Bombay, (1974) 2 SCC 402
30. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1979) 1 S.C.C. 248.
31. N.S. Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra 1996 3 SCR 744
32. Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra, 1966 SCR (3) 744

33. Narinderjit Singh Sahni & Anr v. UOI & Ors, AIR 2001 SC 3810.
34. Navjyoti Coop. Group Housing Society v. Union of India, (1992) 4 SCC 477
35. New Horizons Ltd v. Union of India, (1995) 1 SCC478
36. Om Kumar v. Union of India, (2001) 2 S.C.C. 386.
37. Ponmaram and Ors v. State of Rajasthan, 1983.
38. Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Union of India, (2002) 5 SCC 111
39. R.C. Cooper v. Union of India (1970) 2 S.C.C. 298.
40. R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority, (1979) 3 SCC 489
41. Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Tendolkar, 1958 AIR 538, 1959 SCR 279
42. Rati Lal v. State of Bombay AIR 1954 SC 388
43. Riju Prasad Sarmah v. the State of Assam, (2015) 42 SCD 764
44. Romesh Thapar v. Union of India AIR 1950 SC 124
45. Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra AIR 2002 SC 1771
46. Satyanarayana Sinha v. Lal and Co. (1974) 1 S.C.R, 615
47. Saurabh Chaudhari v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 2212
48. Sharma Transport v. Government of A.P., (2002) 2 SCC 188
49. Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P., (1991) 1 SCC 212
50. State of Bombay v. united Motors Ltd. AIR 1953 SC 252
51. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shobharam and Ors, W.P No. 243/ 1954 (1966)
52. State of Maharashtra v. Champalal Punjaaji, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 1675.
53. Sunil Kumar Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2005
54. Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, A.I.R 1993 SC 2178

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

 5

STATEMENT OF FACTS

BACKGROUND

1. Mr. Anay Nawaami is the editor-in-chief and founder of „Democratic TV‟ which is a
news Channel having its registered office at Pumbai in the Saharashtra State of
Indiana. Mr. Anay Nawaami got into an agreement with Mr. Abhay Sharma, an
interior decorator to furnish and decorate his office at the cost of 5 crore rupees,
which was agreed upon by both the parties. Rs. 1 crore was paid in advance and the
remainder was to be paid at the completion of the work. But Mr. Anay Nawaami did
not pay the balance amount even after the completion of work.

2. In the year 2017, due to heavy debts in relation to the work done for democratic TV,
Mr. Abhay Sharma committed suicide leaving suicide note holding Mr. Anay
Nawaami responsible for his death.
3. An FIR was filed by Mrs. Abhay Sharma alleging Mr. Anay Nawaami abetting
suicide of Mr. Abhay Sharma. But the Sessions Court quashed the FIR on the ground
„lack of evidence to show direct nexus‟ in the year 2018.
4. In the year 2020, the newly elected changed Government reopened the case of
abetment of suicide and arrested Mr. Anay Nawaami since he had fiercely reported
against this Government.
5. Mr. Anay Nawaami then applied for bail in the Sessions Court and before the
hearing could take place, he appealed in the High Court where the High Court
rejected his petition and ordered him to go back to the Sessions Court to exhaust the
local remedies first.
6. Against this High Court order, he approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 and
immediately the case was taken up for hearing on urgent basis and Mr. Anay
Nawaami was granted Bail.
GROUND THAT LED TO FILE A PIL

7. There was an outrage in the country for selective hearing when 3650 similar petitions
were pending before the Supreme Court of Indiana.
8. Modern Legal Research Centre(MLRC), an NGO being the torch bearer of civil and
political rights collected the signature of all 3560 pending petitioners to file a PIL
questioning the selective hearing.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

 6

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE RESPONDENT HUMBLY SUBMITS THIS MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE

TO THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THIS HON’BLE SUPREME COURT. THE
PETITION INVOKES ITS WRIT JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE
CONSTITUION OF INDIANA. IT SETS FORTH THE FACTS AND ON WHICH
THE CLAIMS ARE MADE.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. WHETHER THE PIL PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA IS MAINTAINABLE?

2. WHETHER THE SELECTIVE HEARING OF ANAY

NAWAAMI’S WRIT PETITION AMOUNT TO VIOLATION OF
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE PETITIONERS UNDER
ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA?

3. WHETHER THE SELECTIVE HEARING VIOLATES ARTICLE

21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA?

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

 7

SUMMARY OF ARGUEMENTS

1. WHETHER THE PIL PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA IS MAINTAINABLE?

The respondents most humble submits that the petition filed under Article 32 of the
constitution is not maintainable. This is because petitioner does not have the Locus
Standi to file the petition [1.1]; judiciary is not a part of the „State‟[1.2];and there is
no infringement of fundamental rights [1.3].

2. WHETHER THE SELECTIVE HEARING OF ANAY NAWAAMI‟S WRIT PETITION

AMOUNT TO VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE PETITIONERS
UNDER ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA?

The respondents most humbly submits that the selective hearing of Anay Nawami;s
writ does not violates Article 14 of the constitution of Indiana. This is because Anay
Nawaami‟s petition is non-arbitrary and comply to the doctrine of reasonable
classification [2.1] and there is no fail in the matter of legitimate expectation by the
Supreme Court in hearing the petitions of the 3560 petitioners [2.2].

3. WHETHER THE SELECTIVE HEARING VIOLATES ARTICLE 21 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA?

The respondents most humbly submits that the selective hearing does not violate
Article 21 of the Constitution of Indiana. This is because the life and liberty of the
petitioner is not affected due to selective hearing [3.1] there is no arbitrariness in the
procedure established by law for selective hearing [3.2] and there is no violation of
speedy trial [3.3].

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

 8

ARGUEMENTS ADVANCED

1. THE PIL PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION

OF INDIANA IS NOT MAINTAINABLE.

1. It is humbly submitted before this Hon‟ble Court A Public Interest Litigation can be
filed under the Article 32 of the constitution for the enforcement of fundamental
rights, as by the part III of the Constitution.1 In the case of Romesh Thapar v. Union
of India2, the court held that only if there is a violation of Fundamental Rights can it
step in under the jurisdiction of Article 32. In the instant case there has been no
violation of fundamental rights since the court acted in furtherance of the writ
petition filed by Anay Nawami. The petitioner in this case is raising a mere scholarly
objection, without any locus standi. Therefore the PIL petition filed by the petitioner
is not maintainable.
2. The respondents submits that the petitioner does not have the locus standi to file the
petition(1.1); judiciary is not a part of the state(1.2); and there is no infringement of
fundamental rights(1.3)

1.1 The petitioner does not have the locus standi to file the petition
3. The locus standi of the petitioner is a sine qua non and condition precedent for the
excise of power and jurisdiction by the court3.The issue of locus standi in case of
fundamental right violation is of utmost importance because the court may not
entertain such a petition if not presented by an aggrieved person.4
4. Public interest Litigation is a discretionary remedy within the hands of the courts. A
person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceedings of the public
interest litigation will alone have a locus standi and can approach the court to wipe
out violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but
not for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique

1
Andhra Industrial Works v. Chief Controller of Imports and Ors, AIR 1974 SC 1539, Guruvayur Devaswom
Managing Committee v. C.K Rajan and Ors (2003)7 SCC 546, BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of
India (2002) 2 SCC 333.
2
AIR 1950 SC 124
3
V.G. Ramachandran, Law of Writs 26(Eastern Book Company, 6 th ed. 2006); see also, Fertilizer Corporation
Kamgar Union v. Union of India,(1981) 2 S.C.R. 52
4
Satyanarayana Sinha v. lal and co. (1974) 1 S.C.R, 615

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

 9

consideration. These aspects were highlighted in the case of Janta Dal v. H.S.
Chowdhary5 and Kazi Lhendup Dorji v. Central Bureau of Investigation6. Justice
Bhagawathi.J in the case of S.P. Gupta v. Union of India 7 held that;

“Any member of the public having sufficient interest can maintain an action
for judicial redress for public injury arising from breach of public duty or
from violation of some provision of the constitution or the law and seek
enforcement of such public duty or from violation of some provision of the
constitution or the law and seek enforcement of such constitutional or legal
provision”.

5. 3560 petitioners are already representing themselves before the court of law with
their respective bail applications. They are not people hailing from an economically
backward community. They are capable enough to represent themselves before the
court. But here the NGO who is a stranger to the petitioners are unnecessarily
intervening in their matters. Therefore the petitioner has no locus standi to file the
Public Interest Litigation.

1.2 Judiciary is not a part of the ‘State’

6. It is humbly submitted before this Hon‟ble court that in the case of Rati Lal v. State
of Bombay8, it was held that judiciary is not state for the purpose of article 12 . Also
in the case A.R. Antulay v. R.S Nayak9 and N.S. Mirajkar v. State of
Maharashtra10,it was observed that when rulemaking power of judiciary is concerned
it is state but when exercise judicial power is concerned it is not state. Finally in the
case Rupa Ashok Hurra v. ashok Hurra11, a constitutional bench of the court
unanimously affirmed the decision of the case Khoday Distillereries v. Registrar
General , Supreme Court of India12 that no final order of the court can be challenged
under Article 32. In the instant case the Supreme Court was excercising its judicial
function.

5
AIR 1993 SC 892.
6
1994 3 SCR 201.
7
AIR 1982 SC 149.
8
AIR 1954 SC 388.
9
AIR 1988 SC 1531.
10
1996 3 SCR 744.
11
AIR 2002 SC 1771.
12
(1996) 3 SCC 114.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

 10

7. Furthermore, the petitioners are seeking a relief under Article 32 against the judicial
actions of this Honourable court. It is a well settled principle of law that court
exercising judicial functions does not come under the wide sweep of the definition
state under Article 12 for the purpose of this particular writ petition.

1.3 No Infringement of fundamental rights

8. It is humbly submitted before this Hon‟ble court that fundamental rights are not
infringed in this case. The fundamental rights under Article 14 and 21 are not
violated. Article 14 states that the state shall not deny to any person equality before
the law or equal protection of law within the territory of India. This is also called as
the rule of law. In the instant case there is no infringement of fundamental rights as
the court acted in furtherance of writ petition filed by Mr.Anay Nawami.In the case
Charanjith Lal Chowdhury v. Union of India13 it was held that;

The legislature undoubtedly has a wide field of choice in determining and

classifying the subject of its laws, and if the laws deals alike with all of a
certain class, it is normally not obnoxious to the charge of denial of equal
protection; but the classification should never be arbitrary.”

9. In the case of Sharma Transport v. Government of A.P 14, it was observed that the
expression arbitrarily means; in an unreasonable manner. In the instant case, there
was no violation of Article 14 as the court acted in furtherance of the writ petition
filed by Anay Nawaami.
10. Article 21 of the constitution states that no person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. In the case Babu
Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh15, the court held that the right to bail was included in
personal liberty under Article 21 and the refusal would be the deprivation of that
liberty which could be authorized in accordance with procedure established by law.
In the instant case the court acted in furtherance of the writ petition filed by Anay
Nawaami and hence there is no violation of Article 21.

13
AIR 1951 SC 41
14
(2002) 2 SCC 188
15
AIR 1978 SC 527

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

 11

11. Therefore, it is humbly submitted before this Hon‟ble court that the PIL petition filed
by the petitioner is not maintainable.

2. THE SELECTIVE HEARING OF ANAY NAWAAMI’S WRIT PETITION

DOES NOT AMOUNT TO VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
OF THE PETITIONERS UNDER ARTICLE 14 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA.
12. It is humbly submitted before the honourable court that the taking up Anay
Nawaami‟s writ petition while 3560 petitions of similar grounds were pending in the
supreme court does not amount to violation of fundamental rights of the petitioners
under article 14 of the constitution of India.
13. The respondents asserts that the decision of the Supreme Court to hear Anay
Navaami‟s petition is non-arbitrary and comply to the doctrine of reasonable
classification [2.1] and there is no fail in the matter of legitimate expectation by the
Supreme Court in hearing the petitions of the 3560 petitioners [2.2]

2.1 The decision of the Supreme Court to hear Anay Nawaami’s petition is non-
arbitrary and comply to the doctrine of reasonable classification
14. Anay Nawaami approached the high court under article 32 and immediately his case
was taken up for hearing on urgent basis and was subsequently granted bail. His case
was selectively listed for hearing while 3560 similar petitions for bail were pending
in the Supreme Court
15. Article 14 of the Constitution of India states , “The State shall not deny to any person
equality before the law or the equal protection of laws within the territory of
India.” Article 14 provides two principles: Equality before the law and equal
protection of the law. Equality before law is a negative concept which states that the
law should be equal and should be equally administered and that the like should be
treated alike.16 It is a positive concept and ensures that all the people should be
treated equally in both privileges and circumstances. It implies that among equals the
law should be equal and equally administered.17 The guarantee of equal protection
applies against substantive as well as procedural laws.18

16
Venkataramaiya’s Law Lexicon, Volume 1, Human Rights
17
M P Jain, Constitutional Law, 8th edition, Lexis Nexis Butterworth
18
Lachmandas v. State of Bombay, AIR 1952 SC 239

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

 12

16. Article 14 of the Indian constitution forbids class legislation but it does not prohibit
the reasonable classification of objects, persons, and transactions for the purpose so
as to achieve specific ends by the parliament. Such classification should not be
artificial, arbitrary or evasive and it must rest on substantial distinction which is real.
It must bear a reasonable and just relation to the sought object which is to be
achieved by the legislation. Classification of reasonable as laid by the Indian
Supreme Court has two conditions as in the case of Saurabh Chaudhari v. Union of
India19, are-

(i)- The classification must be founded on intelligible differentia,

distinguishing grouped together persons or goods from the left out ones of the
group.

(ii)- The differential must be in a rational relation with the sought object that is
to be achieved by the act. The object of the act and differential on the basis of
classification are two separate things. It is essential that there must be the
presence of nexus between the object of the act and the basis of classification.
When a reasonable basis is not present for classification then such
classification made by the legislature must be declared discriminatory.

17. In R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority20 case, Bhagwati J held that: “The
principle of reasonableness and rationality which is legally as well as philosophically
an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness is protected by Article 14 and it
must characterise every State action, whether it be under authority of law or in
exercise of executive power without making of law.”
18. More recently, Pasayat J in Sharma Transport v. Government of A.P.21 has observed
as follows: The expression „arbitrarily‟ means: in an unreasonable manner, as fixed
or done capriciously or at pleasure, without adequate determining principle, not
founded in the nature of things, non-rational, not done or acting according to reason
or judgment, depending on the will alone.

19
AIR 2004 SC 2212
20
(1979) 3 SCC 489
21
(2002) 2 SCC 188

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

 13

19. In Maneka Gandhi case22 where Bhagwati J concurring with the majority in a 6:1
decision observed:

“Article 14 strikes, at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and

equality of treatment.”

20. P.K. Tripathi argues that the arbitrariness prohibited by article 14 concerns the
„distributive aspect‟ of state action. He has stated thus: “The arbitrariness inhibited
by Article 14 is the arbitrariness or unreasonableness in discriminating between one
person and another; if there is no discrimination there is no arbitrariness in the sense
of Article 14.” 23 Similarly, in Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P.,24 the court held
that every State action must be informed by reason and it follows that an act
uninformed by reason, is arbitrary.
21. In the instant case, the decision of the Supreme court to list the petition of Anay
Navaami for urgent hearing does not by itself hinder the enjoyment of the
fundamental rights under article 14 of the petitioners of the 3560 pending bail
petitions in the court because of the fundamental reason that Anay Navaami‟s
petition is a writ and the petitioners‟ have filed bail petitions before the honourable
Supreme Court of Indiana.
22. Article 12 of the constitution of India states that, “In this part, unless the context
otherwise requires, “the State” includes the Government and Parliament of India and
the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other
authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of
India.”
23. When the body is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or
under the control of the government and such control is particular to the body and is
pervasive, then it will be “State” within Article 12. If the control is merely
regulatory, it will not be a State25.
24. In the case Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra26 the Apex Court reaffirmed and ruled
that no judicial proceeding could be said to violate any of the Fundamental rights and
that it is a settled position of law that superior courts of justice did not fall within the

22
(1978) 1 SCC 248
23
P.K. Tripathi, “The Fiasco of Overruling A.K. Gopalan” AIR Journal 6 (1990)
24
(1991) 1 SCC 212
25
Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Union of India, (2002) 5 SCC 111.
26
AIR 2002 SC 1771

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

 14

ambit of „state‟ or „other authorities‟ under Article 12. This was further reiterated
recently in the case Riju Prasad Sarmah v. the State of Assam27. The above
judgement was based on the tenets of the case of Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar And Ors
v. State Of Maharashtra28 judgement. In this case the Majority of the nine judge
bench said that judicial functions shall not come under the ambit of the word state.
Judiciary being an independent body detached from the other two organs of the
government does not come under the purview of the “State” under Article 12 of the
Constitution of India.
25. For the cases when the advocate on record wants urgent listings in the Supreme
Court the procedure followed is, once the petition is filed, they need to request CJI or
his nominee for want of urgent listening. It‟s at their discretion that such petitions are
entertained. While during court breaks, pending cases are allowed to be listed before
the vacation bench after both the parties consent to the same. 29
26. Hence in the instant case, the classification made between the petitioners of the 3560
applications and Anay Nawaami‟s petition and subsequently listing Nawaami‟s
petition for hearing on an urgent basis is entirely constructed in a rational and
reasonable manner by the judiciary as both the petitions differ in the basic category ,
one being a writ while the 3560 petitions being bail petitions.

2.2 There is no violation with respect to the doctrine of legitimate expectation by

the Supreme Court of India.
27. Legitimate expectation arises when

a. if there is an express promise given by a public authority; or

b. because of the existence of a regular practice which the claimant can

reasonably expect to continue;

c. such an expectation must be reasonable.30

28. Every legitimate expectation is a relevant factor requiring due consideration in a fair
decision-making process. Whether the expectation of the claimant is reasonable or

27
(2015) 42 SCD 764.
28
1966 SCR (3) 744
29
Supreme Court Handbook on Practice and Procedure and office procedure
30
Madras City Wine Merchants' Association and Ors. v. State of T.N. and Ors. (1994) 5 S.C.C. 509, Para 60

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

 15

legitimate in the context is a question of fact in each case.31 Whenever the question
arises, it is to be determined not according to the claimant's perception but in the
larger public interest wherein other more important considerations may outweigh
what would otherwise have been the legitimate expectation of the claimant.32 A bona
fide decision of the public authority reached in this manner would satisfy the
requirement of non-arbitrariness and withstand judicial scrutiny.33
29. The doctrine of legitimate expectancy is not a specific legal right engraved in a
particular statute or rule book. The first time, an attempt was made to establish the
principles of the doctrine were in the case of Council of Civil Service Unions and
Others v. Minister for the Civil Service 34 that the decision by the public authority
should affect the person such that-

i)His rights or obligations are altered, which are enforceable by or against him

ii) He is deprived of some benefit or advantage which he had been permitted

by the authorizing body in the past and which he could have legitimately
expected to enjoy until a valid ground for withdrawal of the same was
communicated to him or he had been assured by the decision making body
that such a benefit or advantage would not be withdrawn until him being given
an opportunity of contending reasons as to why they were withdrawn.

30. In the instant case, the Supreme Court has completely followed all the procedures for
the urgent listing of Anay Nawaami‟s Writ Petition. Considering the urgency and far
reaching consequences, the legitimate expectation of the petitioners herein is not
violated since the selective listing was exercised abiding all procedures and not on
arbitrary terms. The petitioners have not been deprived of any advantage.
31. Hereby, the respondent humbly asserts that selectively hearing the petition of Anay
Nawaami does not deprive the fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution
of the petitioners.

31
Food Corporation of India vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries (AIR 1993 SC 1601), Para 8
32
Ibid
33
Ibid
34
[1985] AC 374

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

 16

3. SELECTIVE HEARING DOES NOT VIOLATE ARTICLE 21 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA

“Liberty is itself the gift of law and may bye law be forfeited or abridged.”35

32. It is humbly submitted before the Hon‟ble Court that there is no violation of
Fundamental rights of a person to life whatsoever under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India of the Petitioners as [3.1] Life and liberty of the petitioner is not
affected due to selective hearing [3.2] there is no arbitrariness in the procedure
established by law for selective hearing [3.3] and there is no violation of speedy trial.

3.1 Life and liberty of the petitioner is not affected due to selective hearing
33. It is humbly submitted that the life and liberty of the Petitioner is not being violated
due to selective hearing of Mr. Anay Nawaami‟s case.
34. The right of life and liberty so guaranteed under Article 21 is also subject to the rule
of proportionality36. Liberty is the right of doing an act which the law permits37.
Liberty is confined and controlled by law as it is regulated freedom. It is not an
abstract or absolute freedom. The safeguard of liberty in the good sense of the people
and in the system of representative and responsible Government which has been
evolved.
35. The word used in Art. 21 is “deprived” which means a „total loss‟38. Black‟s law
Dictionary defines Deprivation as “taking away or confiscation as the deprivation of
a constitutional right without due process of law39. There can be no liberty without
social constraints. Liberty of each citizen is born of and must be subordinated to the
liberty of the greater number, in other words, common happiness as an end of the
society40.
36. Hence, in the present case, the Respondent does not take the right of life and liberty
of the petitioner through the process of selective hearing and the life and liberty of
3560‟s petitioners where not affected here. In the present case, since Mr. Anay
Navaami‟s writ petition is of an urgent matter and that case was being heard on the

35
ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, A.I.R 1976 S.C. 1207.
36
Om Kumar v. Union of India, (2001) 2 S.C.C. 386.
37
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 S.C.C. 569.
38
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, (1950) S.C.R. 88;
39
Black‟s Law Dictionary, 11th edition, Thomson Reuters.
40
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994)3 S.C.C. 569;.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

 17

basis of selective hearing which will not affect the life and liberty of other petitioners
as their Petition was in relation with bail and not writ, which was entirely different.

3.2 No Arbitrariness in the procedure established by law for Selective Hearing

37. It is humbly submitted before this hon‟ble Court that in the present case, there is no
violation in relation with the procedure established by law. The Respondents
correctly followed the procedure of selective hearing and in just, fair and reasonable
manner.
38. No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to
procedure established by law and such procedure shall be reasonable, fair and just41.
39. The Supreme Court has asserted in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab42 that the
procedure contemplated by Art 21 is that it must be “right, just and fair” and not
arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive. In order that the procedure be right, just and fair, it
must confirm to natural justice. Accordingly, it required, firstly, existence of an
enacted law authorizing interference with the life of personal liberty, secondly, the
law should be valid, and thirdly, the procedure laid down by the law must be
followed43.
40. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shobharam and Ors44, the Court held that no authority in
India (Legislative, executive, judicial) can deprive a person of his life or personal
liberty unless it can justify its action under a procedure established by law.
41. Listing of the cases falls under the authority of the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court of India. Meanwhile, the registry of the Supreme Court carries out their
administrative task involved in this. A reference to the Supreme Court Handbook on
Practice and Procedure and Office Procedure clears all ambiguities with respect to
urgent listing of matters. It is understood that for a case that needs an urgent listing,
lawyers have to mention their request in front of the chief justice or his nominee. It is
the discretion of the court whether to allow the request. The listing process was
recently revamped. The roster of cases, a subject-wise classification of which cases
will be heard by specific benches, is made by the master of the roster. The Chief

41
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1979) 1 S.C.C. 248.; See also, Francis Coralie Mullin v. The
Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi & Ors, 1981 A.I.R. 746.
42
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 S.C.C. 569.
43
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, A.I.R. 1950 SC 27; Bishan Das v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1961 SC 1570;
Kartar Singh v. State of U.P. A.I.R. 1963 SC 1205.
44
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shobharam and Ors, W.P No. 243/ 1954 (1966)

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

 18

Justice of India is the one who holds this position. After the roster has been assigned
by the Chief Justice, a subsequent listing of cases and daily cause list is prepared by
the registry. This is done in accordance with the roster given to them.
42. The registrar shall keep a list of all cases pending before the court, and shall, at the
commencement of each term prepare and publish on the notice board/website of the
Court a list of all cases ready for hearing in each class separately, to be called the
“terminal list”. The cases in the “terminal list” shall be arranged year wise in each
class separately in the order of their registration, and the list shall be updated from
time to time45
43. Therefore, here the procedure is being correctly followed by the Respondent, hence it
comes under the ambit of restrictions under Article 21 of the Constitution of Indiana.

3.3 No violation of speedy trial

44. It is humbly submitted that in this present case, there is no violation of speedy
remedy under Article 21 as here the argument raised by the petitioner is the selective
hearing of Mr. Anay Nawaami. But here, it is of a writ petition while the remaining
3560 cases was in related with bail petition. So, the Petitioner cannot raise a question
related with speedy trial of 3560 petitioners.
45. In Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna46 , speedy trial was
accepted as a fundamental right, by speedy trial we mean reasonably expeditious
trial, is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty
enshrined in Article 21. In State of Maharashtra v. Champalal Punjaaji47, the Apex
Court observed that delay is a known defense tactic. With the passage of time,
witnesses cease to be available and memories render the onus on the prosecution
even more burdensome and make a welter weight task a heavy weight one.
46. Likewise, in the instant case, these 3560 pending cases where in relation with bail
petition and Mr. Anay Nawaami‟s case was in relation with writ petition. So,
violation of speedy trial is not applicable in the present case.
47. It was humbly submitted that Mr. Anay Nawaami‟s case and remaining 3560 cases
cannot be synced together as one is of writ petition and other is of bail petitions
respectively.

45
Order 7, Supreme Court Rules 2013;
Chapter 13- Supreme Court Handbook on Practice and procedure and Official Procedure, 2017.
46
Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna, A.I.R. 1979 SC 1369.
47
State of Maharashtra v. Champalal Punjaaji, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 1675.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

 19

48. The division bench of Delhi High court while dealing with the case of Sunil Kumar
Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi)48, had the occasion to classify bail application and
writ petitions. The Honourable bench enunciated that the grant of bail under the
statute and Habeus Corpus matters stood on entirely different footings.
49. Likewise, in the instant case, Mr., Anay Navaami‟s case was in connection with Writ
Petition and of 3560 petitioners‟ cases were in connection with bail petitions. Hence,
the arguments of petitioner, MLRC, that is violation of speedy trial is not applicable
here and also violation life and liberty is also not applicable here as these two cases
come under two different ambit and the procedure for selective hearing is fair, just
and reasonable bringing it under the restrictions enshrined in Article 21 of the
Constitution of Indiana.
50. Hence, it is humbly contended before this Hon‟ble Court on behalf of the
Respondent that there is no violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of Indiana as
here Petitioner‟s life and Personal liberty is not being affected and the procedure
followed for the selective hearing is just, fair and reasonable.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. V.N Shukla, Constitution of India, 13th edition, Eastern book Company.

2. Jain M.P, Indian Constitutional Law,6th edition 2011, Lexis Nexis Butterworth
WadawaNagar
3. H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India, 4th Edition 2006, Universal Publishing Co.
Pvt. Ltd
4. D D Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, 22nd edition, Lexis Nexis
5. www.scconline.com
6. www.legalcrystal.com
7. www.lawyersclub.com
8. www.indiankanoon.com

48
Sunil Kumar Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), Criminal Appeal 37/2010 , Delhi High court ; see; Ponmaram
and Ors v. State of Rajasthan, 1983 WLN 534.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

 20

PRAYER

In the light of issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the petitioners humbly
pray that the Hon‟ble Supreme court may kindly adjudge and declare that;

1. THE PIL PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA IS NOT MAINTAINABLE.

2. THE SELECTIVE HEARING OF ANAY NAWAAMI‟S PETITION DOES NOT

VIOLATE ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA.

3.THE SELECTIVE HEARING OF ANAY NAWAAMI‟S PETITION DOES NOT

VIOLATE ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA.

Or may kindly pass any other order that the Hon’ble supreme Court may deem fit. For this
act of kindness the petitioners shall in duty bound forever pray.

Respectfully Submits

Sd/-

Counsels for the respondents.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS