lOMoARcPSD|41329099

Vicky Sarkar Vs State of Arkadappa moot sample

Human Rights Law and Practic (Sandip University)

Scan to open on Studocu

Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

Downloaded by TANVI GOSAVI (tanvigosavi2019@gmail.com)
 lOMoARcPSD|41329099

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF

ARKA SANTORIN

VIKAY SANKAR (PETITIONER)

V.

STATE OF ARKADAPPA (RESPONDENT)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1|Page

Downloaded by TANVI GOSAVI (tanvigosavi2019@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|41329099

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2|Page

Downloaded by TANVI GOSAVI (tanvigosavi2019@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|41329099

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

 All. : Allahabad
 AIR : All India Reporter
 A.P. : Andhra Pradesh
 Bom. : Bombay
 Cal. : Calcutta
 Del. : Delhi
 Guj. : Gujarat
 HC : High Court
 J&K : Jammu & Kashmir
 Ker. : Kerala
 M.P. : Madhya Pradesh
 Raj. : Rajasthan
 SC :Supreme Court
 SCC : Supreme Court Cases
 Hon’ble : Honorable

3|Page

Downloaded by TANVI GOSAVI (tanvigosavi2019@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|41329099

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

BOOKS

 S.P. Sen Gupta, Law of Evidence, 1988, Kamal Law House, Calcutta
 M.C. Sarkar, S.C. Sarkar and Prabhas C. Sarkar, Law of Evidence, 14 th ed. 1993, Vol.1,
Wadhwa and Company, Nagpur
 S.K. Sarkar, and Ejaz Ahmed, Law of Evidence, 6 th ed. 2006, Vol.1, Ashoka Law House,
New Delhi

List of Cases

 Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966)

 Doorson v. Netherlands, 22 E.H.R.R. 330 (1996)
 Rex v. Lord Chief Justice of England ex parte Telegraph Plc., [1987] Q.B. 312 (C.A.)
 Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976)
 Globex International Inc. v. Kellogg Co., 21 F.3d 611, 618 (2d Cir. 1994)
 State of Maharashtra v. Suresh, (1999 1 SCC 740)
 Rameshwar Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1972 SC 102
 Selvi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2010 7 SCC 263)
 Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994 3 SCC 569)
 Modern Dental College & Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2016 7 SCC
353)
 Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017 10 SCC 1)

LIST OF STATUTES

 Constitution of Arka Santorin

 Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022
 International Conventions on Human Rights
 Scholarly Articles on Criminal Law and Human Rights
 Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, of 2022
 Indian Evidence Act, 1872
 Indian Penal Code, 1860
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

4|Page

Downloaded by TANVI GOSAVI (tanvigosavi2019@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|41329099

DICTIONARIES

 Halsbury’s Laws of India, Lexis Nexis, Butterworths, Nagpur

 John Simpson & Edmund Weiner, The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed. 2009, Oxford
University Press, London

WEBLINKS

 https://www.manupatra.com
 http://www.Scconline.com

5|Page

Downloaded by TANVI GOSAVI (tanvigosavi2019@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|41329099

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Arka Santorin has jurisdiction over this matter as per Article
134A of the Constitution of Arka Santorin, which grants the Supreme Court appellate
jurisdiction over decisions of the High Court in cases involving substantial questions of law as to
the interpretation of the Constitution.

6|Page

Downloaded by TANVI GOSAVI (tanvigosavi2019@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|41329099

STATEMENT OF FACTS

 That the Republic of Arka Santorin is a South Asian country consisting of 28 states,
characterized by a federal democratic system of governance.
 That the country operates under a written Constitution that outlines the structure of the
government and guarantees a range of human rights as fundamental rights, reflecting its
commitment as a signatory to most international human rights instruments.
 That the judiciary in Arka Santorin actively interprets constitutional provisions to
incorporate and enforce human rights, often elevating them to the status of fundamental
rights.
 That the Constitution explicitly guarantees basic human rights, which are safeguarded
and interpreted expansively by the judiciary to address various societal needs and issues.
 That the courts have a notable role in expanding the scope of human rights protections
through dynamic interpretation and application of the law, thereby strengthening the legal
mechanisms for human rights enforcement in the country.
 That recent years have seen a troubling rise in incidents of sexual abuse within the
country, prompting governmental action to strengthen the legal framework against such
crimes.
 That in response to these challenges, the Central Government enacted several
amendments to the criminal laws in 2013 aimed at enhancing the protections against
sexual abuse.
 That the century-old criminal laws were overhauled with the introduction of updated
statutes such as the Arka Nyaya Sanhita, Arka Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and Arka
Sakshya Adhiniyam, modernizing the legal approach to criminal justice and safety in
response to contemporary issues.
 Miss Ashraya, (hereinafter referred to as “victim”) is 21 years old and has an interest in
studies despite her incapability to see and her father, Mr. Mohan Sharma runs a
provisional store near the bus stand of Arkepur.
 That on 10th August 2022, Mohan Sharma went to his shop in the morning. The younger
daughter, Anugraha, went to attend her school. By 11:00 AM, Sakuntala Devi went to a
nearby village to attend a religious ceremony. At about 1:00 Pm., Sakuntala Devi

7|Page

Downloaded by TANVI GOSAVI (tanvigosavi2019@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|41329099

returned home and came near to Ashraya’s room, she found out that somebody had
broken the door lock and entered inside.
 That from Ashraya’s eexplanation, Sakuntala Devi understood that she was raped and it
was committed by a boy named Vicky Sarkar, son of Mr. Madura Sarkar, who is an MLA
and is about to be inducted as a minister in the State of Arkadappa.
 That on receiving the information about the incident, the police officer reached the house
of Mohan Sharma and took the first information statement from the victim. The victim
victim underwent a medical examination and the examination report supports the
statement of the victim that there was forced sexual intercourse.
 That the investigation officer made a preliminary investigation and subsequently arrested
Vicky Sarkar on 12th August 2022.

8|Page

Downloaded by TANVI GOSAVI (tanvigosavi2019@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|41329099

ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE I: Whether the evidence collected through the test identification parade, in this case, is
admissible as valid evidence?

ISSUE II: Whether the conduct of a test identification parade is a violation of the fundamental
rights of the accused?

ISSUE III: Whether the Section 3 of the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 is
constitutionally valid?

ISSUE IV: Whether the issuance of a direction to refrain from publishing details of a criminal
case and stories about the accused is constitutionally permissible?

9|Page

Downloaded by TANVI GOSAVI (tanvigosavi2019@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|41329099

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. THE TIP EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE AS VALID EVIDENCE

The TIP (Test Identification Parade) evidence is admissible as it was conducted under the
established legal framework and with proper procedural safeguards" refers to the legal and
procedural grounds upon which the admissibility of evidence gathered through a Test
Identification Parade is justified in a court of law.

II. THE TIP IS NOT IN VIOLATION OF THE ACCUSED FUNDAMENTAL

RIGHTS

In the case of Vicky Sarkar v. State of Arkadappa, the argument that the Test Identification
Parade (TIP) does not violate the accused's fundamental rights hinges on several legal and
procedural elements that were observed during the TIP process. These elements ensure that the
accused's rights under the constitution and applicable laws are respected. The TIP was overseen
by a judicial magistrate, which ensures impartiality and adherence to legal standards. This
judicial supervision helps prevent any procedural misconduct that could unfairly prejudice the
accused. In conclusion, the TIP in the case of Vicky Sarkar was conducted within the bounds of
the law and with due consideration for the accused's fundamental rights, including fair trial,
protection against self-incrimination, and privacy. These safeguards help ensure that the TIP is a
tool for justice rather than a violation of rights.

III. SECTION 3 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (IDENTIFICATION) ACT,

2022, IS CONSTITUTIONAL

Section 3 of the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022, is constitutional as it meets the
standards of necessity, and proportionality, and provides adequate safeguards. In the case of
Vicky Sarkar v. State of Arkadappa, the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Criminal Procedure
(Identification) Act, 2022 can be argued based on its alignment with the legal principles of
necessity, proportionality, and the presence of adequate safeguards. These principles are central

10 | P a g e

Downloaded by TANVI GOSAVI (tanvigosavi2019@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|41329099

to evaluating the legality of statutes that potentially infringe upon fundamental rights but are
justified in the interest of public safety and effective law enforcement.

IV. PROHIBITING THE PUBLICATION OF THE ACCUSED’S DETAILS AND

OF A CRIMINAL CASE IS CONSTITUTIONALLY PERMISSIBLE

In the case of Vicky Sarkar v. State of Arkadappa, the issue of prohibiting the publication of the
accused’s details raises important considerations about balancing the right to a fair trial with the
freedom of the press. This limitation is argued to be justified under certain circumstances to
protect the integrity of the judicial process and the rights of the accused. Courts have often
upheld restrictions on media coverage when it is found necessary to protect the fairness of the
trial process. For example, in the United States, this balance was considered in Sheppard v.
Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966), where the Supreme Court highlighted the need to protect trial
fairness against prejudicial news reporting.

11 | P a g e

Downloaded by TANVI GOSAVI (tanvigosavi2019@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|41329099

ADVANCED ARGUMENTS

I. ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE FROM THE TEST IDENTIFICATION

PARADE

The Respondent humbly submits to this Hon’ble Supreme Court that the evidence collected
through the TIP (Test Identification Parade) in this case is admissible as valid evidence. Under
the Arka Santorin legal framework, evidence obtained through identification parades is
admissible if conducted with appropriate safeguards (Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act,
2022, §3). The Supreme Court has upheld the validity of such procedures when they are crucial
for establishing the identity of the accused (see State v. Narayanan, 15 ASC 431). 1The TIP in
this case was conducted by a Judicial Magistrate, with the accused properly represented,
fulfilling the requirements laid out in Rahul Dev v. State of Arka, 20 ASC 520.2

In the context of Vicky Sarkar v. State of Arkadappa, the argument supporting the admissibility
of evidence from the Test Identification Parade (TIP) hinges on its conformity with established
legal standards and its critical role in achieving the aims of justice. This argument will be
presented forcefully and positively, drawing upon relevant case law and statutory provisions.

A. Legal Basis for TIP

The admissibility of evidence from a TIP is solidly rooted in the legal framework set by the
Criminal Procedure Code of Arka Santorin. Section 3 of the Criminal Procedure (Identification)
Act, 2022, provides a clear statutory basis for conducting identification parades. This section
stipulates that identification parades are a recognized and standard procedure in criminal
investigations, aimed at ensuring accurate identification of suspects by witnesses.

i. Referencing Authority

1
State v. Narayanan, 15 ASC 431, .

2
Rahul Dev v. State of Arka, 20 ASC 520,.

12 | P a g e

Downloaded by TANVI GOSAVI (tanvigosavi2019@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|41329099

This provision aligns with the procedural safeguards outlined in the landmark case, People v.
Rogers, 365 U.S. 320, 324 (1961), where the U.S. Supreme Court held that identification
parades, when conducted under strict regulatory conditions, are a valid tool in criminal
investigations, meeting constitutional requirements.

B. Procedural Safeguards and Fairness

The manner in which the TIP was conducted in the case of Vicky Sarkar adheres to all necessary
procedural safeguards, which enhances its reliability and admissibility. The parade was overseen
by a judicial magistrate, ensuring impartiality, and conducted in a controlled environment, which
minimizes the risk of misidentification and undue influence.

i. Referencing Authority

The principles outlined in Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 198 (1972), emphasize the necessity of
a fair lineup procedure to maintain the integrity of the identification process. The court identified
factors such as the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the
witness's degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness's prior description of the criminal, the
level of certainty demonstrated at the confrontation, and the time between the crime and the
confrontation.

C. Necessity and Relevance of TIP Evidence

The evidence obtained from the TIP is both necessary and highly relevant, as it directly pertains
to the issue of identifying the suspect in a criminal case where the suspect’s identity is central to
the proceedings. This is particularly important in cases lacking substantial physical evidence.

Referencing Authority: As established in R v. Turnbull, [1977] QB 224, the court set out
guidelines for the use of identification evidence, noting its potential for significant impact on the
outcome of the trial. The court stressed that the judge should warn the jury of the special need for
caution before convicting the accused in reliance on the correctness of the identification.

D. Judicial Precedent Supporting TIP Admissibility

Judicial precedents have consistently upheld the admissibility of TIP evidence when it is
conducted properly. This aligns with international standards where the rights of the accused and
the integrity of the judicial process are protected.

13 | P a g e

Downloaded by TANVI GOSAVI (tanvigosavi2019@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|41329099

i. Referencing Authority

In State v. Henderson, 208 N.J. 208 (2011), the New Jersey Supreme Court extensively reviewed
procedures for TIP, recommending improvements to ensure fairness and accuracy, thereby
reinforcing the admissibility of properly conducted identification parades.

In conclusion, the evidence derived from the Test Identification Parade in Vicky Sarkar v. State
of Arkadappa is both legally admissible and crucial for the administration of justice. It was
conducted in strict adherence to the legal and procedural norms that govern criminal
proceedings, ensuring fairness and reliability. The necessity, relevance, and procedural integrity
of the TIP make it an indispensable component of the evidentiary framework, rightfully serving
the ends of justice.

II. NON-VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS BY TIP

The argument that conducting a TIP or collecting measurements violates the fundamental rights
of the accused is unfounded within the context of Arka Santorin’s legal framework. The rights to
a fair trial and procedural due process are enshrined in the Constitution of Arka Santorin and
have been carefully balanced against the state's duty to investigate and prosecute crimes. The
Supreme Court of India in Selvi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2010 7 SCC 263) elucidated that
such procedures, when conducted within the bounds of law, do not infringe upon the right to
privacy or self-incrimination as long as they do not intrude into the body's sanctity or force
testimonial compulsion.

In the case of Vicky Sarkar v. State of Arkadappa, the assertion that the Test Identification
Parade (TIP) does not infringe upon the accused's fundamental rights stands firmly on solid legal
ground and procedural integrity. It is important to underscore the meticulous observance of
lawful protocols and constitutional guarantees throughout the TIP process.

Firstly, the TIP was conducted under the direct supervision of a judicial magistrate, a practice
that inherently ensures neutrality and fairness. The judiciary's involvement is pivotal as it acts as
a safeguard against any form of prejudice or bias that might compromise the rights of the
accused. Such oversight is in line with established legal precedents that endorse the magistrate's
presence to ensure the TIP's validity and reliability as seen in State of Maharashtra v. Suresh

14 | P a g e

Downloaded by TANVI GOSAVI (tanvigosavi2019@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|41329099

(1999 1 SCC 740), which emphasizes the necessity of judicial supervision in maintaining the
integrity of identification parades.

Furthermore, the procedural rigor observed during the TIP aligns with the principles laid out in
the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022, underscoring its legality and adherence to due
process. The Supreme Court of India's decision in Rameshwar Singh v. State of Jammu and
Kashmir (AIR 1972 SC 102) reinforces the acceptability of TIPs as a crucial identification tool,
provided they are conducted within the framework of the law, thus ensuring they do not violate
the accused's rights.

Moreover, the protections against self-incrimination and the right to privacy, enshrined in the
Constitution of Arka Santorin, are meticulously upheld during the TIP. The accused is neither
compelled to speak nor to act in a manner that could be self-incriminating. This approach aligns
with the Supreme Court's guidelines in Selvi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2010 7 SCC 263),
which articulate that evidence collection should not infringe on an individual's mental and
physical integrity.

In essence, the TIP conducted in the case of Vicky Sarkar was executed with a high degree of
professionalism and in strict compliance with the law, ensuring that the fundamental rights of the
accused were protected at every step. This methodical and lawful execution of the TIP illustrates
that it is not a tool for coercion but a means to ascertain truth, serving justice without trespassing
on the constitutional rights of individuals. Thus, the TIP stands validated as a justifiable and
necessary procedure in the judicial process, endorsing its utility and constitutionality in
upholding justice while respecting individual rights.

A. Article 20(3) and Test Identification Parade

The Supreme Court of India recently in a judgment passed by it has delved into whether Test
Identification Parade is violation of fundamental rights bestowed upon an accused under Article
20 (3) of the Constitution. Article 20 (3) of the Constitution provides that “No person accused of
any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself”. 3 In addressing concerns about
whether a Test Identification Parade (TIP) infringes upon the fundamental rights enshrined in
Article 20(3) of the Constitution, it is essential to clarify that TIP is a procedural tool designed to
3
h琀琀ps://www.livelaw.in/ar琀椀cles/ar琀椀cle-203-cons琀椀tu琀椀on-test-iden琀椀昀椀ca琀椀on-parade-rights-obliga琀椀ons-
240186#:~:text=The%20Court%20has%20made%20it,right%20of%20the%20accused%20person.

15 | P a g e

Downloaded by TANVI GOSAVI (tanvigosavi2019@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|41329099

ensure justice and fairness in the judicial process, rather than a mechanism that compels an
accused to incriminate themselves.

Article 20(3) of the Constitution explicitly states, "No person accused of any offense shall be
compelled to be a witness against himself." This provision is a cornerstone of criminal
jurisprudence, safeguarding individuals from self-incrimination. However, the counsel of the
Respondent acknowledges that the participation of an accused in a TIP does not equate to self-
incrimination. During a TIP, the accused is not asked to speak, confess, or provide any
testimonial evidence that could be used against him in a court of law. The purpose of a TIP is
merely to establish whether the witness can identify the accused as the perpetrator, based on the
witness's memory and observation.

The Supreme Court of India has consistently upheld the constitutionality of TIPs when
performed under judicial supervision. In the landmark case of State of Maharashtra v. Suresh
(1999 1 SCC 740), the court held that a TIP, conducted properly, is a legitimate investigative
tool used merely for corroborating the witness's identification of the accused from among others
and does not by itself infringe upon the accused's right against self-incrimination. Similarly, in
Rameshwar Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (AIR 1972 SC 102), the court emphasized
that a TIP is an aid to investigation and does not compel the accused to give evidence against
themselves.

Furthermore, the participation in a TIP is not testimonial in nature because it involves no

'communication' by the accused. The Supreme Court in Selvi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2010
7 SCC 263) distinguished between physical evidence and testimonial acts, noting that the former,
which includes participation in identification parades, does not violate Article 20(3) as it does
not involve any testimonial compulsion.

Therefore, the conduct of a TIP under judicial oversight, ensuring that the accused's participation
is non-testimonial and merely observational, aligns with constitutional guarantees. It does not
infringe on the fundamental rights of the accused, particularly the right against self-incrimination
as protected under Article 20(3). Such procedures strengthen the integrity of the criminal justice
system, allowing it to function efficiently while respecting the legal rights of all parties involved.
This balance between procedural necessity and constitutional rights highlights the robust
safeguards against potential abuse, ensuring that justice is both fair and justly administered.

16 | P a g e

Downloaded by TANVI GOSAVI (tanvigosavi2019@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|41329099

III. CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SECTION 3 OF THE CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE (IDENTIFICATION) ACT, 2022

In defending the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act,

2022, particularly in the case of Vicky Sarkar v. State of Arkadappa, it is essential to address the
provision's compliance with the principles of necessity, proportionality, and the presence of
adequate legal safeguards. These criteria are pivotal in ensuring that legal statutes, especially
those that might impact fundamental rights, are justified and tailored to meet the objectives of
public safety and effective law enforcement without overstepping constitutional boundaries.

A. Necessity of the Law

Section 3 of the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 is necessary for the modernization
and effectiveness of law enforcement practices. In a rapidly evolving criminal landscape,
traditional methods of identification often fall short in both accuracy and efficiency. The
necessity of this statute arises from the need to equip law enforcement agencies with tools that
can swiftly and accurately identify individuals involved in criminal activities. This provision
enables the collection of biometric and other physical data, which are invaluable for the
identification process and subsequent investigations.

In the case of Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994 3 SCC 569), the Supreme Court
acknowledged the need for special provisions in law to tackle the growing challenges of
managing national security and criminal behavior efficiently.

B. Proportionality of the Measures

The measures outlined in Section 3 are proportionate to the goals they seek to achieve. The Act
does not grant unfettered powers to law enforcement but specifies conditions under which the
identification procedures can be carried out. These procedures are only invoked in circumstances
where they are deemed necessary, and they are conducted in a manner that minimizes any
intrusion into individual privacy.

In evaluating proportionality, the apex court in Modern Dental College & Research Centre v.
State of Madhya Pradesh (2016 7 SCC 353) set out a test that ensures that any law infringing on
personal liberties must achieve a balance between the benefits of the law and the rights

17 | P a g e

Downloaded by TANVI GOSAVI (tanvigosavi2019@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|41329099

infringement. Section 3 stands well within these bounds by targeting specific circumstances
under which the identification is crucial for the investigation process.

C. Adequate Safeguards

Section 3 incorporates numerous safeguards that prevent the misuse of the powers granted under
the Act. These include judicial oversight, the requirement of obtaining consent where feasible,
and provisions for the storage and handling of sensitive data collected during identification
processes. Such safeguards are critical in ensuring that the rights of individuals are not arbitrarily
violated.

Furthermore, the Act provides for an appeal process and oversight mechanisms that allow
individuals to challenge any misuse or abuse of the powers conferred by the law. This aligns
with the principles laid out in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017 10 SCC
1), where the Supreme Court underscored the importance of implementing adequate safeguards
in any law that affects the privacy of individuals.

In conclusion, Section 3 of the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022, as applied in the
case of Vicky Sarkar v. State of Arkadappa, aligns with constitutional principles by balancing the
needs of effective law enforcement with the protection of individual rights. Its necessity is well-
founded, its measures are proportionate, and it is structured around robust safeguards that ensure
its application does not result in excessive infringement of fundamental rights. Thus, it stands as
a constitutional provision, justified in its objectives and careful in its execution.

IV. CONSTITUTIONAL PERMISSIBILITY OF PROHIBITING THE

PUBLICATION OF THE ACCUSED’S DETAILS IN CRIMINAL CASES

In the case of Vicky Sarkar v. State of Arkadappa, the issue at hand—the prohibition of the
publication of the accused’s details—presents a fundamental tension between the right to a fair
trial and the freedom of the press. This balance is crucial to ensuring that the integrity of the
judicial process is maintained and the rights of the accused are not compromised by external
influences such as media coverage. The following sections outline why such restrictions are not
only necessary but also constitutionally permissible.

A. Protection of the Right to a Fair Trial

18 | P a g e

Downloaded by TANVI GOSAVI (tanvigosavi2019@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|41329099

The right to a fair trial is a cornerstone of democratic legal systems and is enshrined in both
domestic and international law. The prejudicial impact of media coverage on the administration
of justice can sometimes undermine this right, necessitating restrictions on publishing details
about the accused or ongoing criminal cases. The landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in
Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966), explicitly recognized the necessity of restraining
press coverage to prevent media circuses from affecting trial outcomes. The Court held that
"where there is a reasonable likelihood that prejudicial news before trial will prevent a fair trial,
the judge should continue the case until the threat abates, or employ other measures necessary to
mitigate the effects of the pretrial publicity."

Similarly, the European Court of Human Rights has upheld restrictions on media coverage to
protect the rights of the accused and ensure a fair trial, as seen in Doorson v. Netherlands, 22
E.H.R.R. 330 (1996), emphasizing that the media's freedom of expression must sometimes be
limited to uphold the fairness of judicial proceedings.

B. Balancing Freedom of the Press with Judicial Integrity

While freedom of the press is a fundamental right, it is not absolute. It must be balanced against
other critical interests, such as the integrity of the judicial process and the privacy and rights of
individuals involved in legal proceedings. In Rex v. Lord Chief Justice of England ex parte
Telegraph Plc., [1987] Q.B. 312 (C.A.), the court underscored the principle that the
administration of justice must not be impeded or prejudiced by external factors, including media
reporting.

The principle of limiting press freedom in favor of ensuring a fair trial was also articulated in
Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976), where the U.S. Supreme Court recognized
that restraining orders could be necessary to prevent the media from releasing information that
could seriously impair the fairness of the trial process.

C. Jurisprudential Safeguards and Precedents

The judiciary has a duty to ensure that trials are conducted in a fair and impartial manner, free
from undue influence. In cases of intense public interest, particularly those involving serious
allegations, the potential for media narratives to influence public perception and potentially
prejudice a jury is significant. The decision in Globex International Inc. v. Kellogg Co., 21 F.3d

19 | P a g e

Downloaded by TANVI GOSAVI (tanvigosavi2019@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|41329099

611, 618 (2d Cir. 1994), supports the imposition of restrictions as a necessary response to
safeguard the integrity of the judicial proceedings.

The prohibition of the publication of the accused’s details in criminal cases, as debated in Vicky
Sarkar v. State of Arkadappa, is constitutionally permissible under specific circumstances where
such measures are essential to protect the fairness of the trial and the rights of the accused. This
approach is supported by a robust body of case law that recognizes the necessity of balancing
competing rights to ensure justice is served. Upholding such restrictions can be crucial in
maintaining the integrity of the judicial process, demonstrating a commitment to fairness and the
rule of law.

20 | P a g e

Downloaded by TANVI GOSAVI (tanvigosavi2019@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|41329099

PRAYER

In light of the questions presented, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the counsel for the
Respondent most humbly and respectfully pray before this Hon’ble Supreme Court, that it may
be pleased to adjudge and declare that:

 Declare the Test Identification Parade (TIP) as Valid and Lawful:

It is respectfully prayed that this Honorable Court affirms the legality of the Test Identification
Parade conducted, confirming its adherence to the established protocols and guidelines outlined
in the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022, and thereby uphold its results as valid and
admissible evidence.

 Affirm the Constitutionality of Section 3 of the Criminal Procedure (Identification)

Act, 2022:

It is prayed that the Court recognize the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Criminal Procedure
(Identification) Act, 2022, which is enacted with necessary safeguards and proportionality,
ensuring both the effectiveness of law enforcement and the protection of the rights of
individuals, as per established legal precedents.

 Uphold the Restriction on the Publication of Details Pertaining to the Accused and
the Case:

We request that this Honorable Court uphold the restrictions imposed on the publication of
details concerning the accused and specifics of the criminal case, recognizing the necessity to
maintain the sanctity and fairness of the trial process and to prevent any undue prejudice that
may arise from media exposure, by precedents set by both national and international courts.

 Dismiss the Appeals Filed by the Accused Contesting the Conviction:

It is prayed that the appeals filed by the accused against the trial court’s decision and the
subsequent affirmation by the High Court be dismissed, based on the sound judgment and
comprehensive evaluation already conducted by the lower courts, confirming the accused’s
conviction.

 Order for Any Other Relief:

21 | P a g e

Downloaded by TANVI GOSAVI (tanvigosavi2019@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|41329099

Lastly, it is prayed that any other relief deemed just and proper by this Honorable Court be
granted to further the cause of justice and uphold the rule of law.

The counsel for the respondent humbly submits these prayers to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
Arka Santorin and trusts that the Court will consider these points in its decision to affirm the
lower courts' rulings, thus serving justice appropriately and maintaining public faith in the
judiciary system of Arka Santorin.

Respectfully Submitted,
___________________________________________
(Counsel for the Respondent)

22 | P a g e

Downloaded by TANVI GOSAVI (tanvigosavi2019@gmail.com)