2ND VIRTUAL SHRI RAMSWAROOP MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

2024

TEAM CODE- ILS 40

2ND VIRTUAL SHRI RAMSWAROOP MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT

COURT COMPETITION, 2024
.

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF FREEDONIA

IN THE MATTER OF:

MR. JACK MIRANDA …PETITIONER

Versus.

THE STATE OF ZUPI …RESPONDENT

WRIT PETITION(CIVIL) NO. ***/2024

SUBMISSIONBEFORE THEHON’BLE SUPREME COURTOF FREEDONIA

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF FREEDONIA

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

COUNSELS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

0
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
2N
D
VIRTUAL SHRI RAMSWAROOP MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
202
COMPETITION, 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATION ................................................................................................ 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................................... 4

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

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

ISSUES ................................................................................................................................ 10

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

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

1. WHETHER THE PREVENTIVE DETENTION LAW VIOLATES MIRANDA’S

RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS UNDER FREEDONIA CONSTITUTION. ................... 13

1.1 FAILURE OF RESPONDENT TO TAKE THE MANDATORY REVIEW OF ADVISORY

BOARD. ................................................................................................................................
13

1.2 LEGAL MANDATE TO DISCLOSE GROUNDS OF DETENTION TO MIRANDA. ....

14

2. WHETHER THE PREVENTIVE DETENTION LAW INFRINGES UPON

MIRANDA'S FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION. .................................... 15

2.1 THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION IS AN INSEPARABLE

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT. ................................................................................................... 15

2.2 THE PREVENTIVE DETENTION LAW VIOLATE THE REASONABILTY AND

PROPORTIONALITY PRINCIPLE. .....................................................................................
16

3. WHETHER THE PREVENTIVE DETENTION LAW CONSTITUTES AN

UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE UNDER THE FREEDONIA
CONSTITUTION. ..............................................................................................................
18

3.1 SEARCH AND SEIZURE STAND ARBITRARY UNDER CODE OF CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE. ..................................................................................................................... 18

3.2 UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE GROSSLY INFRINGE THE RIGHT TO

 PRIVACY. ............................................................................................................................. 19

1
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

2ND VIRTUAL SHRI RAMSWAROOP MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

2024

4. WHETHER ANY LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT INTERESTS JUSTIFY THE

ENACTMENT OF THE PREVENTIVE DETENTION LAW. .................................... 20

4.1 THE ACTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT THAT LED TO THE DETENTION OF THE
DETENU WERE JUDGED TO BE PREJUDICIAL TO 'PUBLIC ORDER'. ......................
20

PRAYER .............................................................................................................................

22
 2
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

2ND VIRTUAL SHRI RAMSWAROOP MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

2024
 LIST OF ABBREVIATION

ABBREVIATIONS EXPANSION

& And

AIR All India Reporter

Anr. Another

Art. Article

Const. Constitution

CrPC Code Of Criminal Procedure

FR Fundamental Rights

Govt. Government

HC High Court

HON'BLE Honourable

ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights
i.e. That Is

IBID Ibidium

J. Justice

Ltd. Limited

Ors. Others

Para Paragraph

Supra Above

UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights

UOI Union of India

v. Versus

3
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
2ND VIRTUAL SHRI RAMSWAROOP MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,
2024
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CONSTITUTION

1. The Constitution of India, 1950.

STATUTES

1. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1973 (India).

WEBSITES

1. SCC ONLINE, www.scconline.com

2. MANUPATRA, www.manupatra.com
3. LIVELAW, www.livelaw.in

CASES
CASE NAME CITATION PG.NO
A.K. Gopalan v. The state of Madras AIR 1950 SC 27. 21
Ameena Begum v. the State of Telangana and Ors. (2023) 9 SCC 587. 13, 15,
20
A. K Roy v. Union of India. (1982) 1 SCC 271. 15
Banka Sneha Sheela v. State of Telangana (2021) 9 SCC 415. 20
Bennett Coleman & Co. & Ors v. Union of India (1973) 2 SCR 757. 16
& Ors.

Fogla & S.K Jalil v. State of West Bengal AIR 1975 SC 245. 14
Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1975 SC 1378. 19
Hansmukh v. State of Gujarat AIR 1981 SC 28. 14
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v. (1985) 2 SCR 287 15
Union of India

Khudiram Das v. State of W.B. AIR 1975 SC 550. 14

Justice K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India AIR 2017 SC 4161. 16
Lochner v. New York (1904) 198 U.S. 45. 16
Mallada K Sri Ram v. State of Telangana 2022 SCC OnLine SC 424. 20
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 2 SCR 621. 13
4
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 2ND VIRTUAL SHRI RAMSWAROOP MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,
2024

Prabha Dutt v. Union of India (1982) 1 SCR 1184. 15

Prakash Chandra Yadav v. The State of Jharkhand SLP(C) No.5331/2023. 17

Partap v. Director of Enforcement (1985) 3 SCC 72. 18

Radha Kishan v. State of U.P AIR 1963 SC 822. 18
Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar (1966) 1 SCR 709 21

Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu (2011) 5 SCC 244. 20

Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 124. 15
Shaik Nazneen v. The State of Telangana & Ors. WP 35519/21 (Telangana 21
HC)
Shibban Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1954 SC 179. 14
Shri Rangnath v. Union of India (2003) 7 SCC 133. 16

S.N Sarkar v. Union of India AIR 1973 SC 1425. 14

State of Punjab v. Jagdev AIR 1984 SC 444. 14
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain (1975) 3 SCR 333. 15
State of Rajasthan v. Rahman AIR 1960 SC 210. 18
S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989) 2 SCC 574. 16
Vimal v. Pradhan AIR 1979 SC 1501. 13
BOOKS
1. V.N Shukla, Constitution of India, 13th Edition, Eastern Book Company, 2019.
2. J.N Pandey, Constitutional Law of India, 57th Edition, Central Law Agency, 2020.
3. Durga Das Basu, Shorter Constitution of India, 15th Edition, Lexis Nexis, 2021.
4. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, 22nd Edition, Lexis Nexis,
2021.
ARTICLES

1. Hailie Ludsin, Preventive Detention and the Democratic State, Cambridge University
Press, 84-153 (2016).

CONVENTION
1. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966.
2. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.

5
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

2ND VIRTUAL SHRI RAMSWAROOP MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

2024

ONLINE SOURCES
1. K. Manoggny Reddy, what is preventive detention, LAW INSIDERS, (April. 24,
2021), https://www.lawinsider.in/columns/what-is-preventive-detention
2. Sheryl Sebastian, Preventive detention law cannot be invoked at the drop of hat,
Livelaw, (Sep 5, 2023), https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/preventive-detention-
lawcant-be-invoked-at-the-drop-of-a-hat-some-police-officers-curbing-liberty-
supremecourt-slams-telangana-police-236993
3. Robert E. Riggs, 'Substantive Due Process', Wis. L. Rev. 941, (1990),
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/constitution-center/constitution/due-process-clause/
4. Gopal Krishan. Preventive Detention in India: A Legal Perspective, Int. J. Rev and
Res. Social. Sci, (2019), https://www.ijrrssonline.in/AbstractView.aspx?PID=2019-
72-29
5. Amnesty International (India), Lawless Laws, http://lawlesslaws.amnesty.org.in/
(2016), https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/ASA20/001/2011/en/ last visited on
09/04/2024.
 6
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 2ND VIRTUAL SHRI RAMSWAROOP MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,
2024

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Counsel for the Petitioner, hereby humbly

submitbefore the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of
Freedoniaunder theArticle32 of theConstitution of Freedonia.

The Petitioner would like to most humbly

submit that this Petition is maintainable.

ARTICLE32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF FREEDONIA,

1950:

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 therights 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 warranto 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 all 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.

7
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
2N
D
VIRTUAL SHRI RAMSWAROOP MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
202 COMPETITION,
4

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

Freedonia, a federal democracy in the Asia-Pacific region, emerged from colonial rule in 1947
and adopted a secular framework upon independence. The nation experienced communal
tensions between its majority Fire worshipper and minority Book worshipper populations,
prompting the founding fathers to emphasize secularism and protect religious freedoms.
Postindependence, public order challenges persisted, leading to the enactment of preventive
detention laws. The debate over balancing security concerns with due process rights continued
as the nation navigated uprisings and separatist movements.

2. SUPREME COURT'S VIEW ON PREVENTIVE DETENTION LAW

The Supreme Court acknowledged the necessity of preventive detention laws in extraordinary
circumstances but cautioned against their regressive nature. Emphasizing the importance of a
progressive legal framework, the court advised re-evaluation and abolition of such laws.

3. PROVISIONS OF THE ACT

The Zupi government enacted the Zupi Public Safety Act in 2024 which permits preventive
detention of individuals deemed to threaten public safety, allowing detention for up to three
months, extendable to three years without trial. Sections 6 and 7 grant broad powers to detain
individuals without full disclosure of grounds for detention.

4. DETENTION OF JACK MIRANDA

Civil rights activist Jack Miranda was detained under the Zupi Public Safety Act after
criticizing its constitutionality. Despite seeking clarification, Miranda's detention was extended
for three years. The government alleged Miranda's intent to incite communal hatred for
political gain, justifying his detention as a pre-emptive measure to maintain public order.

5. ALLEGATIONS MADE BY THE PETITIONER

The petitioner highlighted significant breaches of constitutional guarantees, including

violations of due process, freedom of speech, and protection against unreasonable searches
and seizures. Due to the gravity of these violations, the case was elevated to a constitutional
bench for thorough scrutiny. Despite persistent efforts to obtain information about Miranda's

8
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 2ND VIRTUAL SHRI RAMSWAROOP MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,
2024

detention, the petitioner faced silence from authorities. Despite repeated inquiries, no
clarification was forthcoming, leading to a challenge against the extension of Miranda's
detention for an additional three years. The challenge presented to the apex court questioned
the compatibility of the preventive detention law with various provisions of the Freedonia
Constitution, particularly emphasizing rights to due process, freedom of speech, and freedom
from unreasonable searches and seizures.is
 9
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
2N
D
VIRTUAL SHRI RAMSWAROOP MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT 202
COURT
COMPETITION, 4

ISSUE
S
ISSUE: 1

Whether the preventive detention law violates Miranda's right to due process under the
Freedonia Constitution.

ISSUE: 2

Whether the preventive detention law infringes upon Miranda's freedom of speech and
expression.

ISSUE: 3

Whether the preventive detention law constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure under
the Freedonia Constitution.

ISSUE: 4

Whether any legitimate government interests justify the enactment of the preventive detention
law.
 10
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

2ND VIRTUAL SHRI RAMSWAROOP MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

[1]. THE PREVENTIVE DETENTION LAWS VIOLATE MIRANDA’S RIGHT TO

DUE PROCESS

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in the given factual matrix
there is a gross violation of Miranda’s right to due process which includes review by Advisory
board, communication of grounds of detention to detenu and the detenu’s right of
representation under Article 22 (4) to (7) of the Constitution of Freedonia, on the ground that
the detaining period was further increased up to three years and later the petitioner was not
provided with the reasons on which ground he has been detained.

[2]. THE PREVENTIVE DETENTION LAWS ENACTED BY THE CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT OF FREEDONIA INFRINGE UPON THE MIRAND’S
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION
(ARTICLE 19).

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that there is a gross violation of
Article 19 and 21 which in turn is infringing upon the principles of democracy and individual
liberties. Additionally, the Article 32 of the Constitution of Freedonia grants the constitutional
remedy to every citizen to approach the Apex Court for the protection of fundamental rights.

Moreover, the constitution of Freedonia does not grant broad unchecked powers that lead to a
cumulative infringement of Article 19 of the Constitution of Freedonia. The freedom to talk
freely is at the heart of free speech.

[3]. THE PREVENTIVE DETENTION LAW CONSTITUTES AN UNREASONABLE

SEARCH AND SEIZURE UNDER THE FREEDONIA CONSTITUTION.

It is most humbly submitted that according to the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), the police
must comply with the requirements of the section 165 before conducting any search and
seizure. This is a crucial step in protecting individuals' privacy rights and ensuring that
searches are conducted lawfully and fairly. Therefore, any violation of these provisions not
only undermines the right to privacy but also goes against the principles of justice and
fairness.
 11
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

2ND VIRTUAL SHRI RAMSWAROOP MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

2024

[4]. NO LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT INTERESTS JUSTIFY THE ENACTMENT

OF THE PREVENTIVE DETENTION LAW.

It is humbly submitted to the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the enactment of the contentious
Preventive Detention law (Zupi Public Safety Act, 2024) fails to serve any legitimate
government interests. The implementation of this Act by the government has severely
restricted citizens' rights. The purported grounds for the petitioner's detention, as put forth by
the state government, are unfounded and unjust. This law is reprehensible and flagrantly
violates citizens' rights.
 12
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

2ND VIRTUAL SHRI RAMSWAROOP MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. WHETHER THE PREVENTIVE DETENTION LAW VIOLATES MIRANDA’S

RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS UNDER FREEDONIA CONSTITUTION.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Freedonia, that in the given
factual matrix there is a gross violation of Miranda’s right to due process which includes
review by Advisory board and the communication of grounds of detention to detenu under
Article 22 (4) to (7) of the Constitution of Freedonia.

1.1 FAILURE OF RESPONDENT TO TAKE THE MANDATORY REVIEW OF

ADVISORY BOARD.
1. The regulation in question have far reaching implication on the concept of due
process, Magna Carta, an agreement signed serves an early example of a constitutional
guarantee of due process1. That document includes a clause that declares,

“No free man shall be seized, or imprisoned... except by the lawful judgment of his peers, or
by the law of the land. This concept of the law of the land was later transformed into the
phrase ‘due process of law’.”

2. The Petitioner submits that the government failed to adhere to due process prior to the
detention of Miranda, thereby violating his guaranteed rights. The act of detaining the
petitioner under preventive detention laws directly infringes upon the fundamental right to
due process, an integral aspect incorporated within the Constitution of Freedonia.2

3. Further, the Petitioner contends that the Supreme Court has established crucial
safeguards for individuals facing illegal detention: If the detention period exceeds two
months, the case must be referred to an Advisory Board for its opinion. 3 Article 22(4)
underscores that preventive detention laws cannot authorize the detention of an individual
beyond three months without validation by an Advisory Board. 4 Any law providing for

1 Robert E. Riggs, 'Substantive Due Process', 1990 Wis. L. Rev. 941.

2 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 2 SCR 621.
3 Vimal v. Pradhan, AIR 1979 SC 1501 (Para 3).
4 Ameena Begum v. the State of Telangana and Ors, (2023) 9 SCC 587.

13
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
detention for a longer period 3 months without obtaining the opinion of the Advisory Board
must provide (a) the class or

2ND VIRTUAL SHRI RAMSWAROOP MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

2024
classes of cases and (b) the circumstances under which detention for a longer period of 3
months can be made.5

4. Additionally, the Supreme Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India6, held
that the rights of the citizen go beyond executive action and also applies to preventive
detention law upholding the doctrine of due process.

Hence, in the present factual matrix, the petitioner’s extension of detention under Zupi Public
Safety Act, 2024 without consulting the advisory board signifies a blatant violation of the
petitioner’s right to due process.

1.2 LEGAL MANDATE TO DISCLOSE GROUNDS OF DETENTION TO MIRANDA.

1. The Petitioner humbly submits that the Miranda’s guaranteed rights has been violated
under Article 22(5). As per the due process stipulated in this clause, Miranda was not
informed of the reasons for their detention, a first requirement under Article 22 where all the
basic facts and materials which influenced the detaining authority in making the order of
detention must be communicated to the detenu. If the requirements of this clause are not
strictly complied with, the detention order will be invalid. 7 This legal safeguard enacted by
the constitution-makers against arbitrary or improper exercise of the vast powers of
preventive detention which may be rested in the executive by a law of Preventive Detention. 8

2. Further, the Supreme court in the case of Fogla & S.K. Jalil v. State of West Bengal 9,
established that failure to communicate all reasons for detention deprived the detainee of the
opportunity to present an effective representation, thus rendering the detention violative of
Article 22(5) and necessitating its annulment.

Therefore, the legal mandate to disclose the grounds of detention to detenu was not fulfilled,
despite Miranda's persistent inquiries regarding the grounds for their detention, they were
denied the essential information, leading to infringement of due process of law. Henceforth, it
is humbly submitted before the apex court that the detention order is liable to be quashed and
compensation shall be provided to the petitioner.

5
S.N. Sarkar v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 1425; Shibban Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 179.
6
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 2 SCR 621 7 State of Punjab v. Jagdev, AIR 1984 SC 444.
8
Hansmukh v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1981 SC 28; Khudiram Das v. State of W.B, AIR 1975 SC 550.
9
Fogla & S.K. Jalil v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1975 SC 245.

14
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 2ND VIRTUAL SHRI RAMSWAROOP MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,
2024

2. WHETHER THE PREVENTIVE DETENTION LAW INFRINGES UPON MIRANDA'S

FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION.

It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Freedonia that the
enactment of the Zupi Public Safety Act, 2024 infringes upon the fundamental rights
prescribed under Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution of Freedonia. The freedom to talk
freely is at the heart of free speech. It is considered the primary criterion for autonomy. In
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain10, the Supreme Court concluded that Article 19(1)(a) 11
of the Constitution bestows upon every citizen the right to indulge in free speech, as well as
the right to receive and spread information on topics of public importance.

2.1 THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION IS AN INSEPARABLE

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.
1. Article 19(1)(a)12 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the fundamental right to
freedom of speech and expression, a principle echoed by the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(UDHR).

The petitioner has relied upon cases where the supreme court 13 held that “the fundamental
rights conferred by the different articles of Part III of the Constitution are not mutually
exclusive and that therefore, a law of preventive detention which falls within Article 22 must
also meet the requirements of Articles 14, 19 and 21”. In Romesh Thappar v. State of
Madras14, highlighted the importance of open political deliberation and public education for
the effective functioning of governmental institutions.

2. Moreover, the Supreme Court, in Prabha Dutt v. Union of India15 recognized the right
to access news and information regarding government affairs as integral to freedom.
Similarly, in Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India16 the Apex
Court emphasized the need to extend various rights such as right to privacy, the right to
inform, the

10
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain, 1975 SCR (3) 333.
11
Freedonia Const. art. 19. Cl. 1 12 Ibid.
13
A. K Roy v. Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC 271 (para 70); Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, (2023) 9 SCC 587
(para 67).
14
Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, 1950 SCR 594.
15
Prabha Dutt v. Union of India, (1982) 1 SCR 1184.
16
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (1985) 2 SCR 287.

15
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

2ND VIRTUAL SHRI RAMSWAROOP MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

2024
right to be informed, the right to communicate, the right to partake in civic interactions, and
so on.

3. In the present factual scenario, the petitioner criticizes government actions, asserting that
detaining individuals under preventive detention laws violates freedom of speech and
expression. Dissent and criticism are integral to democracy, and the right to criticize
government policies and operations is not a ground for restricting expression as it is inherent
in the freedom of speech and expression.17 Criticism alone does not constitute an offense 18;
individuals have the fundamental right to form opinions on matters of general concern.
Miranda's public statements aimed at raising awareness about legislation and its impact on
fundamental rights, as supported by the Supreme Court in Hon’ble Shri Rangnath v. Union
of
India19, affirm the right of people to be informed about their fundamental rights under Article
19(1)(a).

2.2 THE PREVENTIVE DETENTION LAW VIOLATE THE REASONABILTY AND

PROPORTIONALITY PRINCIPLE.
1. It is humbly submitted that the petitioner has been detained on the ground that he is
threat to the public safety. However, raising awareness about the legislation is nowhere an
offence the government's use of preventive detention laws in this instance is deemed
unreasonable, unjustified, and fails to meet the standard of proportionality, which states that
only if there is a nexus between the object and particular ends are to be achieved only in such
cases the government will be justified in imposing such restrictions which it deems fit.

2. The doctrine of proportionality, endorsed in Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr.

vs Union of India And Ors.20,where it was held that in the case of proportionality of a
measure must be determined while looking at the restrictions being imposed by the State on
the fundamental rights of citizens. It is not just the legal and physical restrictions that must be
looked at, but also, the fear that these sorts of restrictions engender in the minds of the
populace, while looking at the proportionality of measures.

3. In the case of Benett Colomen21, the Supreme Court established that if a law directly
infringes upon a fundamental right, its intended purpose or subject matter becomes irrelevant,

17
S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, (1989) 2 SCC 574.
18
J.N Pandey, Constitutional Law of India, 57th edition, 237.
19
Shri Rangnath v. Union of India, (2003) 7 SCC 133.
20
Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. vs Union of India and Ors, AIR 2017 SC 4161.
21
Bennett Coleman & Co. & Ors v. Union of India & Ors., (1973) 2 SCR 757.

16
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 2ND VIRTUAL SHRI RAMSWAROOP MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,
2024

rendering it in violation of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of Freedonia. Additionally,

Holmes J., in his seminal dissent in Lochner v. New York22, emphasized that the
reasonableness of a restriction should be judged objectively, based on whether a reasonable
person would find it unreasonable, rather than on subjective grounds.

4. Therefore, the preventive detention laws excessively restrict the petitioner’s right to freely
express opinions in public, exhibiting an arbitrary nature that directly violates the
fundamental rights of citizens. This imbalance fails to reconcile the principle of
reasonableness with the protection of fundamental rights. It is widely acknowledged that,
“All laws on preventive detention are necessarily harsh. They curtail personal liberty of an
individual, who is kept behind bars without any trial”.23

Henceforth, it is very humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the
restrictions imposed by the respondent lack reasonableness according to the doctrine of
proportionality.
Therefore, the order to detain Miranda deserves to be quashed and set aside.
22
Lochner v. New York, (1904) 198 U.S. 45, 49 L.ed.937.
23
Prakash Chandra Yadav v. The State of Jharkhand and Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 529.

17
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

2ND VIRTUAL SHRI RAMSWAROOP MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

2024
3. WHETHER THE PREVENTIVE DETENTION LAW CONSTITUTES AN
UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE UNDER THE FREEDONIA
CONSTITUTION.
It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the contentious
preventive detention law constitutes unreasonable search and seizure under the Freedonia
Constitution. The preventive detention law, unfortunately, allows for unjust and random
search and seizure practices against those detained. This violates the fundamental right to
privacy protected under Article 21 of the Freedonia Constitution which ensures that everyone
has the right to life and liberty, even after being detained.

3.1 SEARCH AND SEIZURE STAND ARBITRARY UNDER THE CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE CODE.
1. The Petitioner humbly submits before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Freedonia that
according to the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), particularly Section 165, mandates the
police to comply with the requirements of the section 165 before carrying out any search and
seizure activities.

2. Section 165 of the Code lays down steps to be followed during a search. ‘The recording
of ground is an important step in the matter of search and to ignore it is to ignore the material
part of the provisions governing searches. If that can be ignored, it cannot be said that the
search is carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It
would be a search made in contravention of the provisions of the Code’. 24 Failure to adhere to
these requirements renders the search illegal. Additionally, in the case of Partap v. Director
of Enforcement,25 the court underscored that police officers must possess “reasonable
grounds for believing,” rather than mere “reasonable suspicion,” before conducting searches
without a warrant, where “reasonable grounds for believing” equate to having a belief based
on concrete facts.

3. In the current factual scenario, the authorities are engaging in illegal and unreasonable
search and seizure, as the preventive detention law does not address this matter. Furthermore,
the respondent has violated the provisions of the CrPC, which grants the power to conduct
search and seizure.

24
State of Rajasthan v Rahman, AIR 1960 SC 210.
25
Partap v. Director of Enforcement, (1985) 3 SCC 72.

18
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 2ND VIRTUAL SHRI RAMSWAROOP MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,
2024

3.2 UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE GROSSLY INFRINGE THE RIGHT

TO PRIVACY.
1. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the contentious
preventive detention law has flagrantly violated the right to privacy through unjustified
search and seizure practices. Within the framework of privacy rights, the unauthorized search
and seizure of individuals blatantly infringes upon their fundamental rights.

2. The Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, categorically

prohibits arbitrary intrusion into privacy, underscoring the entitlement to protection against
such interference. Similarly, Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights also emphasizes this aspect. Moreover, international privacy principles assert that
“Nobody should ever be forced to unjustified or illegal intrusions into their personal, home,
land, or communication, or to illegal strikes upon their honour and reputation.” 26 As a
signatory to the covenant, Freedonia ensures the right to privacy for both state and central
citizens.

3. The Supreme Court, in the case of Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh,27 attempted to
broaden the view of the right to privacy, asserting that certain rights should be protected as
fundamental privacy rights. It was emphasized that privacy should be treated with care and
can only be denied when the state presents a counter-balancing interest deemed
indispensable.

4. In light of the aforementioned facts, the Petitioner contends that the preventive
detention act constitutes unreasonable search and seizure, violating citizens’ right to privacy
and other fundamental rights guaranteed in the Freedonia Constitution.

Henceforth, it is very humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that respondent’s
actions of unreasonable search and seizure may be deemed unconstitutional, as they surpass
the procedures established by the CrPC. Therefore, the order deserves to be quashed and set
aside.
26
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 9 & 17.
27
Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1975 SC 1378.

19
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

2ND VIRTUAL SHRI RAMSWAROOP MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

2024
4. WHETHER ANY LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT INTERESTS JUSTIFY THE
ENACTMENT OF THE PREVENTIVE DETENTION LAW.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Freedonia that in the current
circumstances, the implementation of the Zupi Public Safety Act, 2024 fails to the very object
of preventive detention laws and there appear no legitimate government interest in this
enactment, as it unjustly restricts the rights conferred by the constitution in a manner that is
rigorously unreasonable. The legislation blatantly violates the rights of present petitioner.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu28, stated that
Preventive detention is, “repugnant to democratic ideas and anathema to the rule of law.”
Similarly, in the case of Mallada K Sri Ram vs State of Telangana 29, the court has observed,
“The powers of preventive detention are exceptional and even draconian”.

4.1 THE ACTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT THAT LED TO THE DETENTION OF

THE DETENU WERE JUDGED TO BE PREJUDICIAL TO 'PUBLIC ORDER'.
1. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the that the petitioner's
detention was on false charges, purportedly stemming from statements made during a public
rally, regarding dissatisfaction with the implementation of Zupi Public Safety Act, 2024, were
exercises of fundamental right to speech and expression. The statement does not fall within
the ambit of illicit act disrupting public order, as dissent is intrinsic to democracy and does
not amount to a grave offense.

2. Furthermore, in the case of Banka Sneha Sheela v. State of Telangana 30(2021), which
distinguishes between “public order” and “law and order”, the Court held that in order to
establish the scenario of public disorder, the entire community or the public at large must be
affected and the mere “contravention of law” is not sufficient to constitute the concept of
public order. Additionally, the court in the case 31 has observed “for an act to qualify as a
disturbance to ‘public order’, the activity must impact the general public and evoke feelings
of fear, panic, or insecurity. Stray acts affecting private individuals and the repetition of
similar such acts would not tend to affect the even flow of public life.”

28
Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2011) 5 SCC 244.
29
Mallada K Sri Ram vs State of Telangana, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 424.
30
Banka Sneha Sheela v. State of Telangana, (2021) 9 SCC 415.
31
Ameena Begum V. The State of Telangana & Ors, (2023) 9 SCC 587.

20
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 2ND VIRTUAL SHRI RAMSWAROOP MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,
2024

3. In a recent case of Shaik Nazneen V. The State of Telangana & Ors. 32, the Supreme Court
states that the “maintenance of public order” has a crucial bearing here and unless the
government is justified in holding that the act of the detenu is prejudicial to the maintenance
of public order, “the preventive detention would be bad and would be in violation of Articles
21 and 22 of the Constitution of India as it encroaches upon the liberty and freedom of an
individual”, observed by the bench.

Hence, the actions of the petitioner do not disturb public order, as indicated by the statement
in paragraph 11 of the moot proposition, which suggests that the petitioner was detained due
to engaging in similar activities, considering his past actions, his detention was justified by
the respondent. Therefore, it is important to note that not every breach of peace results in
public disorder.33

In the light of above argument, the arrest and detention of the present petitioner is prima facie
illegal and the detention order is contrary to the set principles of law and liable to be quashed.

32
Crl. Appeal No.908 of 2022, dated 22nd June 2023, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 559.
33
Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, 1965 SCC OnLine SC 9.
 21
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
2N
D
VIRTUAL SHRI RAMSWAROOP MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT 202
COURT
COMPETITION, 4

PRAYER

Wherefore it is prayed, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, and authorities
cited, the Petitioner humbly pray that this Hon'ble Supreme Court may be pleased to adjudge
and declare that:

1. The Present Writ Petition (Mandamus and Haebus Corpus) is maintainable under
Article 32 of the Constitution of Freedonia.
2. The Failure to follow the due process may held to be arbitrary under Article 22 of the
Constitution of Freedonia.
3. The Compensation may be provided in lieu of infringement of Petitioner’s
Fundamental rights.
4. The Zupi Public Safety Act, 2024 may be held violative of freedom of speech and
expression.
5. The Zupi Public Safety Act, 2024 may be held unconstitutional.

And pass any other order, direction, or relief that it may deem fit in the best interests of
Justice, Fairness, Equity and Good Conscience.

For This Act of Kindness, the Petitioner Shall Duty Bound Forever Pray.

(Counsel for the Petitioner)

22
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER