Before

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF REPUBLIC OF INDIVA

W.P CRIMINAL NO. 215 OF 2020

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF REPUBLIC OF INDIVIA

In the matter of Article 19, Article 20, and Article 21 of Constitution of

Republic of Indiva

‘SAMAN ADHIKAR’
NGO………………………………………………………………………………Petitioner

V.

State of Republic of Indiva …………………………………………………….Respondent

i
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS………………………………………………………….. iii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………………... iv
TABLE OF CASES………………………………………………………… iv
STATUTES………….…………………………………………………….... vi
BOOKS REFFERRED ……………………………………………………. vii
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………………………………………….. viii
STATEMENT OF FACT………………………………………………………………. ix
ISSUES RAISED………………………………………………………………………. xii
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS………………………………………………………. xiii
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED………………………………………………………….. 1
i. Whether the writ petition filed under article 32 is maintainable?....... 1

ii. Whether the act of the police was violative of article 21 and 22 of the

constitution of republic of Indiva?....................................................... 5

iii. Whether the right to a fair trial of the accused was violated?.............. 10

iv. Whether the police encounter constitutes an extra-judicial killing

warranting State liability to compensate?............................................ 15

PRAYER………………………………………………………………………………… 20

ii
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR. - All India Reporter

Art. - Article

PIL. - Public Interest Litigation

HC. - High court

SC. - Supreme Court

SCC. - Supreme Court Reports

SCJ. - Supreme Court Journal

Adv. - Advocate

Hon'ble. - Honorable

Fig. -Figure

Org. -Organization

NGO. -Non-Governmental Organization

UDHR. - Universal Declaration of Human Rights

ICCPR. – International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

IPC. - Indian Penal Code

CrPC – The Code of Criminal Procedure

FIR - First Information Report

CBI - Central Bureau of Investigation

CID - Crime Investigation Department

SIT - Special Investigation Team

iii
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

1. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248

2. DK Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416
3. Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, (1981)
1 SCC 608
4. Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., (1994) 4 SCC 260
5. Govind v. State of M.P., (1975) 2 SCC 148
6. Selvi v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 7 SCC 263
7. In Khatri (II) v. State of Bihar, (1981) 1 SCC 627
8. Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra, (1983) 2 SCC 96
9. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, (1979) 3 SCC 532
10.Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273
11.PUCL v. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 399
12.Saman Adhikar v. The Police Officer
13.Golder v. United Kingdom(1975) 1 EHRR 524
14.Murray v. United Kingdom (1996) 22 EHRR 29
15.Salduz v. Turkey (2008) 49 EHRR 19
16.Abdolvahaleh Kermanshah v. Iran (UN HRC Comm. No. 2067/2011)
17.Maghur v. Italy (2003)
18.Kulomin v. Hungary (1996) 11 EHRR 160.
19.Rowe and Davis v. United Kingdom (2000)
20.Findlay v. United Kingdom (1997) 24 EHRR 221
21.Dudgeon v. United Kingdom (1981) 4 EHRR 149
22.Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. United Kingdom (2011) 54 EHRR 23
23.Ilascu v. Moldova and Russia(2004) 40 EHRR 46

iv
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
24.Ciorap v. Moldova (2010) 51 EHRR 16
25.People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India [(2014) 10 SCC
635]
26.D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal [AIR 1997 SC 610]
27.theJoginder Kumar v. State of U.P. [(1994) 4 SCC 260]
28.Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa [(1993) 2 SCC 746]
29.Saheli v. Commissioner of Police [(1990) 1 SCC 422]
30.Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar [(1983) 4 SCC 141]
31.Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan [(1997) 6 SCC 241]
32.People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2005) 2 SCC 436
33. People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India
[(2014) 10 SCC 635]
34. Prabhakaran v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2011) 3 MLJ (Crl) 331]
35. Raman v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 2011 SC 3009)
36. Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons (2016) 3 SCC 700
37.S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (AIR 1982 SC 149)
38. Saheli v. Commissioner of Police [(1990) 1 SCC 422]
39. State of Andhra Pradesh v. Challa Ramkrishna Reddy (2000) 5 SCC
712
40.State of U.P. v. Mohd. Nooh (AIR 1958 SC 86)
41. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajesh Gautam [(2003) 5 SCC 531]
42. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1997 SC 3011)
43.Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 124; 1950 SCR 594
44.Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India AIR 1984 SC 802; (1984) 3
SCC 161
45.People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India AIR 1982 SC
1473; (1982) 3 SCC 235
46.Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1983 SC 378; (1983) 2 SCC
96

v
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 47.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal AIR 1997 SC 610; (1997) 1 SCC 416
48.Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa AIR 1993 SC 1960; (1993) 2 SCC
746
49.Vineet Narain v. Union of India AIR 1998 SC 889; (1998) 1 SCC 226
50.Shreya Singhal v. Union of India AIR 2015 SC 1523; (2015) 5 SCC 1

STATUTES & GOVERNMENTREGULATIONS

1. The Constitution Of India :

ARTICLE 21 [ Protection of life and personal liberty]

ARTICLE 22 [ Right of arrested person ]

ARTICLE 32 [ Right to constitutional remedies]

ARTICLE 226 [ Writ Jurisdiction]

ARTICLE 14 [ Equality before law]

ARTICLE 19 [ Right to freedom of speech]

ARTICLE 300 [ Legal liability of Union and State Governments]

2. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) :

ARTICLE 6 [Inherent Right to life]

ARTICLE 9 [No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention]

ARTICLE 9(1) [ Right to Liberty and Security]

ARTICLE 7 [ Prohibition of Torture]

ARTICLE 6(1) [ Inherent Right to life]

ARTICLE 14 [ Fair Trial ]

ARTICLE 2(3) [ Remedy ]

3. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Section 41 : When police may arrest without warrant

vi
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
Section 41A : Notice of Appearance Before Police Officer

Section 57 : Person arrested not to be detained more than twenty-four hours

4. UNIVERSAL DECLARATION ON HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS (1988)

5. EUROPEAN CONVENTION

ARTICLE 3 : No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or

punishment.

BOOKS

1. Jain M.P., Indian Constitutional Law, 6th Edition 2011, LexisNexis Butterworth Wadhwa
Nagpur

2. Shukla V.N, Constitution of India, 11th edition 2008, Eastern Book Company

3.V.N. Shukla – Constitution of India

4. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer – Law and the Police

5. D.D Basu – Commentary on the Constitution of India

vii
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioners have approached this Hon’ble Court under Article 32 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Indiva, seeking enforcement of their fundamental
rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. The present petition
challenges the legality of the alleged extra-judicial killings committed by State
authorities, which amounts to a violation of the right to life and personal liberty
under Article 21. This Hon’ble Court has original jurisdiction to entertain
petitions relating to the infringement of fundamental rights under Article 32,
which forms the cornerstone of the constitutional remedies available to citizens.
Therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court is competent to adjudicate this matter.

viii
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 STATEMENT OF FACT

 The Republic of Indiva, often known as "Land of Culture," has

accomplished numerous historical and cultural feats. They abided by the
laws and lived in peace. The majority of Indivans revered female goddesses
as emblems of strength and bravery. The city of Ankara has the greatest
rate of literacy in India, and its citizens support gender equality.
 Srishti was a young and ambitious attorney. She assisted the needy pro
bono. She was typically the last employee to leave work and drove home.
On January 17, 2020, about 9:30 p.m., she spotted four men requesting
assistance alongside the road. Two males claimed to be travellers, and one
of their companions was injured nearby. Two individuals followed her as
she dismounted her scooter in an isolated area. On the way, she noticed her
phone was in the scooter. When she returned, she discovered a punctured
wheel on her scooter. At 9:35 p.m., she called her younger sister to inform
her that her scooter had broken down. Two men who had requested
assistance inappropriately groped her. She struck one out of fear, which
infuriated the men, who then pulled her aside and raped her individually.
The four men doused her body with oil, burned her alive until she passed
away, and then escaped to a neighbouring town.
 On January 18, 2020, a farmer discovered the partially burnt remains
beneath an Ankara-Bendakal underpass. The sarpanch of the village called
the police. The luggage and scarf allowed detectives to identify the victim
as a long-missing woman. The police undertook a number of investigations
before to discovering a traffic-control CCTV camera. After recognising
certain identities on the 10 p.m.-recorded CCTV footage, police began
searching for the four individuals who escaped in the direction of the
village. On January 23, 2020, the police detained Javed, Rajesh, Naveen,

ix
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 and Keshav. People protested as soon as the story went public, and it
trended on social media. The supporters of Shrishti demanded justice. All
political parties and the entertainment and media sectors desired swift
justice. The administration rectified the situation swiftly.
 On January 24, 2020, the police presented four suspects to a magistrate
and asked for a seven-day remand for additional investigation. During the
remand term, many notable figures participated in candlelight marches.
On March 2, 2020, the media reported that cops shot and killed four
individuals on their way to court. While being transported to court, Naveen
and Keshav allegedly snatched revolvers from police officers and fired
two shots into the air. Following their pursuit, Rajesh and Javed fled.
According to police, if the four suspects had not been shot, they
would have fled.
 Some applauded the execution of the accused during the alleged
confrontation, while relatives of the victims and human rights
organisations stated that it was an extrajudicial execution. During the
police news conference, no questions were made about how two of the
four suspects were armed despite the presence of ten armed officers. The
accused's families claimed they were threatened by police personnel at the
station, leading them to assume the crime scene was staged. The families
told reporters that authorities informed them there was no way to save the
accused from execution because the entire nation opposed their crime.
 The entire country applauded and supported the police action, which
political leaders dubbed a "Act of Bravery." The NGO Saman Adhikar
petitioned the Ankara High Court. After hearing all the evidence in the
case, the Honorable High Court of Ankara ruled: "The Police had no
choice but to shoot the four accused; otherwise, they would have fled,
inciting a massive nationwide uprising and calling the police's duty into

x
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 doubt." According to the court, the police responded immediately and
courageously to an emergency.

Following the High Court's ruling, the NGO filed an appeal with the Supreme
Court, alleging violations of human and fundamental rights

xi
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the writ petition filed under article 32 is maintainable?

ii. Whether the act of the police was violative of article 21 and 22 of the

constitution of republic of Indiva?

iii. Whether the right to a fair trial of the accused was violated?

iv. Whether the police encounter constitutes an extra-judicial killing

warranting State liability to compensate?

xii
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

 ISSUE 1 : Whether the writ petition filed under article 32 is

maintainable?

The writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution is maintainable, as it

seeks enforcement of the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21,
which has been allegedly violated by State authorities. The Constitution of the
Republic of Indiva, being in pari materia with the Indian Constitution, recognizes
Article 32 not only as a legal remedy but also as a fundamental right in itself,
enabling individuals to directly approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court for
redressal of any infringement of their fundamental rights. In the present case, the
extra-judicial killing of the four accused by police officials, without any judicial
trial or due process, amounts to a grave violation of Article 21. The Supreme
Court, in various precedents including Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and
People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, has held that any unlawful
deprivation of life by State authorities must be subject to constitutional scrutiny.
Moreover, the petitioners, being either family members of the deceased or a
public-spirited NGO committed to protecting human rights, possess the necessary
locus standi to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. Therefore, the
petition clearly falls within the scope and purpose of Article 32 and is
constitutionally maintainable.

 ISSUE 2 : Whether the act of the police was violative of article 21 and
22 of the constitution of republic of Indiva?

The act of the police in carrying out the alleged encounter without due process
is violative of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, which guarantee

xiii
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
the right to life and personal liberty, and the rights of an arrested person,
respectively. Article 21 ensures that no person shall be deprived of life or
personal liberty except according to procedure established by law, a principle
expanded in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [(1978) 1 SCC 248] to include
fairness, justice, and reasonableness. The summary execution of the accused
without judicial trial or oversight blatantly violates this protection. Furthermore,
Article 22(1) grants the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest, the right to
consult and be defended by a legal practitioner, and the right to be produced
before a magistrate within 24 hours, all of which were denied in the case of a
staged encounter. In D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal [AIR 1997 SC 610], the
Supreme Court emphasized the importance of custodial safeguards and held that
failure to follow legal procedures amounts to a constitutional violation. The
Court in Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. [(1994) 4 SCC 260] also reaffirmed
that arrest and detention must not be arbitrary and must conform to legal
safeguards. The deliberate disregard of these constitutional and procedural
mandates by the police not only renders their actions unlawful but also engages
the liability of the State under public law for the violation of fundamental rights.

 ISSUE 3 : Whether the right to a fair trial of the accused was

violated?

The right to a fair trial is a fundamental aspect of Article 21 of the Constitution

of India, and its violation amounts to a direct infringement of the accused's right
to life and personal liberty. In the present case, the alleged police encounter
deprived the accused of the opportunity to be heard before a competent court,
thus violating principles of natural justice and due process. The presumption of
innocence until proven guilty, a cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence, was

xiv
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
completely disregarded. The Supreme Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal
(AIR 1997 SC 610) laid down specific guidelines to prevent custodial abuse,
emphasizing that any form of encounter killing must be subject to strict judicial
scrutiny. Similarly, in People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2014)
10 SCC 635, the Court reiterated that extra-judicial killings are a serious violation
of fundamental rights and mandated independent investigations into such
incidents. The Petitioners submit that the conduct of the police not only subverted
the criminal justice system but also attracted the State’s liability for violating the
accused’s right to a fair trial.

 ISSUE 4 : Whether the police encounter constitutes an extra-judicial

killing warranting State liability to compensate?

The police encounter resulting in the death of the accused constitutes an extra-
judicial killing and violates the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the
Constitution, thereby warranting State liability to compensate the victim’s family
under public law. Such a killing, carried out without judicial process, undermines
the rule of law and the constitutional guarantee that no person shall be deprived
of life except by a procedure established by law, as held in Maneka Gandhi v.
Union of India [(1978) 1 SCC 248]. The Supreme Court in People’s Union for
Civil Liberties v. Union of India [(2014) 10 SCC 635] clearly stated that encounter
deaths must be treated as culpable homicide unless proven otherwise through an
independent investigation and laid down mandatory guidelines for transparency
and accountability in such cases. In Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa [(1993) 2
SCC 746], the Court affirmed that monetary compensation is a proper remedy
under public law for violations of Article 21. Similarly, in D.K. Basu v. State of
West Bengal [AIR 1997 SC 610], it was held that the State is liable for custodial

xv
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
violence and deaths, and compensation serves both as reparation and deterrence.
The principle of State liability was also upheld in Saheli v. Commissioner of
Police [(1990) 1 SCC 422], where the Court awarded compensation for police
brutality. As the encounter was allegedly fake and conducted without judicial
oversight or imminent threat, it falls outside the ambit of lawful self-defence and
instead reflects an arbitrary exercise of power by State agents, thereby attracting
constitutional tort liability.

xvi
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 ADVANCED ARGUMENTS

 ISSUE 1 : Whether the writ petition filed under article 32 is

maintainable?

The Petitioner respectfully submits that the present writ petition under Article 32
of the Constitution of India is maintainable before this Hon'ble Court as it raises
substantial questions pertaining to the infringement of fundamental rights, the
role and accountability of the State machinery, and the preservation of
constitutional mandates vis-à-vis marginalized communities.

The Constitution of India guarantees the right to constitutional remedies under

Article 321, which empowers any person to move the Hon’ble Supreme Court
directly for the enforcement of fundamental rights. In Romesh Thappar v. State
of Madras2, this Hon'ble Court observed that Article 32 provides a guaranteed
remedy for the enforcement of fundamental rights and is in itself a fundamental
right. The Court emphasized that this article forms the cornerstone of the Indian
democratic framework.

The Petitioner, an NGO working towards the realization of equal rights (Saman
Adhikar), seeks judicial redress for systemic police brutality and inhumane
treatment meted out to marginalized sections during lawful protests, thus
invoking Articles 14, 19, 21, and 22 of the Constitution. The actions of the
Respondent, a police officer acting under the aegis of state authority, have directly
led to the gross violation of these rights, rendering this petition amenable under
Article 32.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India3,

1
Indian Const. Art.32
2
AIR 1950 SC 124
3
AIR 1984 SC 802

1
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
recognized the locus standi of social activists and NGOs to approach the Court
on behalf of oppressed individuals. The Court upheld that when fundamental
rights of the poor and the downtrodden are infringed, public interest litigation
(PIL) can be invoked through Article 32. This case is directly analogous to the
present matter, wherein Saman Adhikar seeks to espouse the cause of silenced
and terrorized communities, further cementing the maintainability of the writ
petition.
Moreover, in People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India4, the
Hon'ble Court held that any person genuinely interested in the welfare of a
segment of the population can approach the Court under Article 32, thereby
giving constitutional legitimacy to PIL. The Petitioner, in the instant case, is
undeniably pursuing the interests of those unable to represent themselves due to
intimidation and systemic exclusion.

Further, in Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra5, the Hon'ble Court allowed a

journalist to file a petition under Article 32 to highlight custodial violence against
children. The Court reiterated that the judiciary must be responsive to social
realities and provide remedies against state excesses. Similarly, the present matter
deals with the State’s abuse of coercive powers, thereby entitling the Petitioner
to seek protection of fundamental rights through Article 32.

The jurisprudence laid down in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal6, regarding
custodial violence forms the bedrock of this petition. This Hon’ble Court
categorically held that the rights guaranteed under Article 21 are sacrosanct and
any form of custodial torture is an affront to the dignity and liberty of the
individual. When State actors indulge in unchecked violence, constitutional
courts must act as sentinels. The Petitioner's claims stem from documented
instances of brutality, thereby justifying recourse under Article 32.
4
(1982) 3 SCC 235
5
(1983) 2 SCC 96
6
(1997) 1 SCC 416

2
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
In Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa7, the Court invoked Article 32 to award
compensation for custodial death and reaffirmed that Article 21 8 encompasses the
right to life with dignity. It held that monetary compensation is an appropriate
remedy under Article 32 for violation of fundamental rights. The present petition,
which also seeks structural reforms and damages for the affected individuals, thus
clearly falls within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Article 32.
In Vineet Narain v. Union of India9, the Hon'ble Court underscored its duty under
Article 32 to not only grant declaratory relief but also enforce accountability of
institutions whose actions or inactions infringe upon fundamental rights. The
Petitioner herein prays not just for declaratory relief but also for institutional
accountability, systemic reform, and enforceable guidelines to prevent future
violations.

Additionally, the Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India10, emphasized that when
issues of public health, safety, and civil liberties arise, courts must adopt an
expansive approach to locus standi and maintainability under Article 32. The
widespread implications of unchecked police power, as highlighted in the present
case, necessitate the intervention of this Hon'ble Court.

In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India11, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that Article
32 remains a potent tool for preserving the freedom of speech and expression
from state excesses. The instant petition challenges unwarranted restrictions and
intimidation faced by peaceful protestors, invoking the very essence of Article
19(1)(a) and its protective umbrella through Article 32.

7
(1993) 2 SCC 746
8
Indian Const. Art.21
9
(1998) 1 SCC 226
10
AIR 1987 SC 1086
11
(2015) 5 SCC 1

3
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
The petitioner further relies on the principle of constitutional morality and
transformative constitutionalism laid down in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of
India12, wherein the Hon’ble Court held that constitutional courts must elevate
the rights of marginalized groups by interpreting fundamental rights in a
purposive and inclusive manner. The present petition resonates with that spirit,
urging this Hon'ble Court to expand the scope of Article 32 to offer genuine relief
to those whose voices are systematically suppressed.

In conclusion, the confluence of judicial precedent, constitutional doctrine, and

the principles of public interest litigation robustly establish that the writ petition
filed under Article 32 in the present matter is not only maintainable but warrants
urgent and effective adjudication. This Hon’ble Court, as the guardian of the
Constitution, is both empowered and obligated to adjudicate such a plea where
allegations of grave and continuing violations of fundamental rights by the State
machinery are made.

Therefore, the Petitioner humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to admit
and hear the instant petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

12
(2018) 10 SCC 1

4
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
  ISSUE 2 : Whether the act of the police was violative of article 21 and
22 of the constitution of republic of Indiva?

The Petitioner respectfully submits that the actions of the Respondent, the Police
Officer, constitute a gross violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of
the Republic of India. These Articles, which form part of the inviolable
Fundamental Rights enshrined under Part III of the Constitution, are not mere
procedural formalities but embody the core of human dignity, personal liberty,
and procedural safeguards in a democratic society. The actions of the Police
Officer in the instant case represent a flagrant departure from the constitutional
ethos, jurisprudential principles, and established legal precedents of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India.

Article 21 of the Constitution mandates that "No person shall be deprived of his
life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law." This
right has been interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to include the right to
live with dignity, the right against torture, the right to fair investigation, and the
right to privacy. The celebrated judgment in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India13,
expanded the scope of Article 21 by ruling that any procedure that deprives a
person of life or liberty must be just, fair, and reasonable. In the instant case, the
police action, devoid of fairness and transparency, and executed with manifest
arbitrariness, falls squarely outside the scope of just, fair, and reasonable
procedure, thereby violating the petitioners’ right under Article 21.

In DK Basu v. State of West Bengal14, the Supreme Court laid down exhaustive
guidelines to be followed during arrest and detention to safeguard the rights under
Articles 21 and 22. The police, by acting arbitrarily and failing to adhere to these
guidelines—including the failure to prepare an arrest memo, not informing a
13
(1978) 1 SCC 248
14
(1997) 1 SCC 416

5
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
relative or friend of the arrestee, and not conducting a medical examination have
committed a grave constitutional transgression. The Hon’ble Court unequivocally
held that custodial violence, whether physical or mental, is a direct assault on
Article 21, and any infraction of these principles renders the arrest illegal,
arbitrary, and unconstitutional.
The jurisprudence on Article 21 has consistently emphasized that this
fundamental right extends beyond mere animal existence and includes all aspects
of life that make it meaningful. In Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator,
Union Territory of Delhi15, the Supreme Court held that the right to life includes
the right to live with human dignity, which cannot be taken away except by a
procedure that is fair, just, and reasonable. In the present case, the dehumanizing
treatment inflicted on the members of NGO Saman Adhikar, including prolonged
detention without legal counsel, humiliation, and denial of basic facilities, is a
direct attack on their dignity and, by extension, on their fundamental right to life.

Further, in Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P.16, (1994) 4 SCC 260, the Court
emphasized that an arrest must not only be lawful but also necessary, and that the
police must justify the need for arrest. The arbitrary detention of members of
Saman Adhikar, without a clear and compelling necessity, and in the absence of
any credible threat or breach of peace, is an unconstitutional overreach of police
power. In Govind v. State of M.P.17, (1975) 2 SCC 148, the Court acknowledged
that even surveillance, if done in an arbitrary manner, is violative of Article 21.
In the present case, the conduct of the police exhibits a complete disregard for
necessity and proportionality, key requirements under constitutional
jurisprudence.

15
(1981) 1 SCC 608
16
(1994) 4 SCC 260
17
(1975) 2 SCC 148

6
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
In Selvi v. State of Karnataka18, the Court reaffirmed that forced or involuntary
acts by the police during investigation or interrogation amount to a violation of
Article 21. Any form of coercion, including psychological or physical, is
unconstitutional. The degrading treatment and coercive tactics allegedly
employed by the Respondent during the illegal detention of NGO members
constitute inhuman and degrading treatment, and are manifestly violative of the
right to life with dignity.
Article 22 of the Constitution provides specific safeguards in cases of arrest and
detention. These include the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest, the right
to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of one’s choice, and the right
to be produced before a magistrate within twenty-four hours. The Respondent’s
failure to inform the arrestees of the grounds of arrest, to ensure they were
represented by legal counsel, and to produce them before a magistrate within the
stipulated time period is a flagrant violation of Article 22(1) and (2). In Khatri
(II) v. State of Bihar19, the Supreme Court held that it is the duty of a magistrate
to inform the accused of their right to legal aid and ensure that this right is not
rendered illusory. The denial of this fundamental right vitiates the entire arrest
and detention process.

In Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra20, the Court emphasized the importance

of legal assistance, especially for detainees belonging to marginalized
communities. The state is under an obligation to provide such assistance from the
moment of arrest. The members of NGO Saman Adhikar, working for the welfare
of such marginalized groups, were themselves denied this fundamental right.
Their lack of access to legal representation during critical hours of detention not
only contravenes Article 22 but also perpetuates systemic injustice.

18
(2010) 7 SCC 263
19
(1981) 1 SCC 627
20
(1983) 2 SCC 96

7
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
In Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar21, the Supreme Court recognized the
right to speedy trial as an integral part of Article 21. Though the facts differ, the
underlying constitutional imperative—that no individual should suffer prolonged
or arbitrary detention without a timely and fair legal process—applies with equal
force in the present case, where the Petitioner’s colleagues were kept in custody
beyond reasonable timeframes and without judicial oversight.

In Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar22, the Court warned against unnecessary arrests
and emphasized the need for compliance with Sections 41 and 41A of the CrPC.
These safeguards were crafted to prevent arbitrary deprivation of liberty, and their
breach invites constitutional scrutiny. The Respondent’s complete disregard of
these provisions underscores an unconstitutional abuse of police discretion and a
violation of the Petitioners’ fundamental rights.

The Petitioner further contends that the Respondent’s actions violate not only
domestic constitutional provisions but also India’s obligations under international
human rights law, particularly under the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR), to which India is a party. Articles 9 and 14 of the ICCPR
guarantee the right to liberty and security of person, freedom from arbitrary arrest
or detention, and the right to a fair trial23. The actions of the police in this case—
arbitrary detention, denial of legal counsel, and ill-treatment—are inconsistent
with these international obligations and reflect poorly on India’s adherence to
universally accepted human rights standards.

In PUCL v. Union of India24, the Supreme Court recognized the importance of

transparency and accountability in law enforcement to prevent violations of
human rights.
21
(1979) 3 SCC 532
22
(2014) 8 SCC 273
23
ICCPR ART. 9 & 14
24
(2003) 4 SCC 399

8
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
The conduct of the police in the present case, cloaked in opacity and executed in
blatant violation of constitutional and statutory safeguards, contravenes the
principles of open governance and rule of law.

In conclusion, the acts of the Respondent violate Articles 21 and 22 of the

Constitution by denying the Petitioners their fundamental rights to life, liberty,
dignity, legal counsel, and due process25. The continued disregard for
constitutional norms, judicial precedents, and statutory obligations demands strict
judicial scrutiny and redress. The Petitioner prays that this Hon’ble Court
recognize the egregious constitutional violations committed by the Respondent
and grant appropriate relief to uphold the sanctity of fundamental rights, the
integrity of the rule of law, and the dignity of democratic governance in India.

25
INDIAN CONST. ART. 21 & 22

9
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
  ISSUE 3 : Whether the right to a fair trial of the accused was
violated?

The Petitioner respectfully submits that the fundamental right to a fair trial, as
guaranteed under various international human rights instruments and recognized
principles of natural justice, has been egregiously violated in the instant case of
NGO Saman Adhikar v. The Police Officer26. The violation of the right to a fair
trial not only undermines the sanctity of justice but also impairs the integrity of
judicial proceedings in a democratic society governed by the rule of law.

At the heart of this petition lies a systemic failure by state machinery to uphold
the core tenets of due process and procedural fairness. The right to a fair trial is
enshrined in Article 14(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR), to which the State is a party. This right encompasses various
entitlements such as the presumption of innocence, the right to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation, the right to legal counsel, the right to adequate
time and facilities to prepare a defense, and the right to examine witnesses. In the
case at bar, these fundamental guarantees were consistently disregarded, leading
to an unlawful and unjust adjudication process.

The Petitioner, Saman Adhikar, a non-governmental organization dedicated to the

protection and promotion of civil liberties, contends that the Respondent—a
Police Officer acting under the purported authority of the State—committed
multiple violations of fair trial rights in their handling of the arrest, detention, and
prosecution of several individuals involved in a peaceful demonstration. The
Respondent's actions amount to a direct affront to the principles laid down in
landmark international jurisprudence such as Golder v. United Kingdom27 where

26

27
(1975) 1 EHRR 524

10
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
the European Court of Human Rights held that access to a court is an inherent
aspect of the right to a fair trial.

Moreover, in Murray v. United Kingdom28, the European Court emphasized the

importance of early access to legal counsel. In the instant matter, individuals were
detained without timely information about their legal rights or access to a lawyer,
in blatant contradiction to the principles affirmed in Salduz v. Turkey29, where it
was held that access to a lawyer should be provided from the first interrogation.

Further, the conduct of the Respondent police authorities in this case

demonstrates a deliberate intent to suppress dissent by instituting arbitrary
charges against the protestors, relying on fabricated evidence, and coercing
confessions. Such actions echo the egregious state abuses condemned in
Abdolvahaleh Kermanshah v. Iran30, where coerced confessions were held to
violate the ICCPR.

The arrest and prolonged pre-trial detention without judicial scrutiny constitutes
a grave violation of Article 9 and Article 14 of the ICCPR. The Human Rights
Committee in General Comment No. 3531 has elucidated that pre-trial detention
should be the exception, not the rule, and must be subject to periodic judicial
review. The failure of the authorities in the present case to promptly produce the
accused before a judicial officer mirrors the violations identified in Maghur v.
Italy32 (2003) and contravenes the safeguards upheld in Kulomin v. Hungary33
(1996) 11 EHRR 160.

Furthermore, the lack of access to evidence and the refusal to disclose material

28
(1996) 22 EHRR 29
29
(2008) 49 EHRR 19
30
(UN HRC Comm. No. 2067/2011)
31
The Human Rights Committee in General Comment No. 35
32

33
(1996) 11 EHRR 160

11
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 exculpatory evidence infringes upon the accused's right to equality of arms and
adequate defense. The jurisprudence in Rowe and Davis v. United Kingdom34
underlines the critical role of prosecutorial disclosure in ensuring a fair trial. The
Respondent’s concealment of crucial evidence directly impairs the accused's
capacity to rebut the charges, thereby skewing the balance of fairness in the trial
process.

The Petitioner also draws attention to the procedural irregularities in the trial
itself, particularly the lack of impartial adjudicators and the intimidation of
defense witnesses. In Findlay v. United Kingdom35, the European Court
emphasized the necessity of an independent and impartial tribunal. The presence
of biased officials and the reported interference in witness testimonies starkly
reflect a trial orchestrated to achieve a predetermined outcome, rather than justice.

Moreover, the public character of the trial—a vital component of fair trial
norms—was compromised. The restriction of media and public observers under
the pretext of public order was arbitrary and unjustified, echoing the concerns
raised in Dudgeon v. United Kingdom36regarding state overreach and the
curtailment of civil liberties without adequate justification.

It is imperative to stress that the fair trial guarantees under international law are
not aspirational principles but binding obligations on the State. The United
Nations Human Rights Committee in General Comment No. 3237 has
categorically asserted that the right to a fair trial is non-derogable. In the present
instance, the systemic denial of these rights not only violates the State’s treaty
obligations but also amounts to a breach of customary international law.

34
(2000) 30 EHRR 1
35
(1997) 24 EHRR 221
36
(1981) 4 EHRR 149
37
The United Nations Human Rights Committee in General Comment No. 32

12
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
Additionally, the Respondent’s actions must be examined in the broader context
of human rights defenders’ protections. The United Nations Declaration on
Human Rights Defenders (1998) affirms the right of individuals and groups to
promote and strive for the protection of human rights and to operate free from
intimidation or reprisals. The police action against peaceful protestors advocating
civil liberties, and the subsequent show trial, effectively criminalizes legitimate
activism, which is an affront to international standards.

In Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. United Kingdom38, the European Court underscored

the need for procedural safeguards to offset any disadvantages to the defense,
particularly in cases involving testimonial evidence from absent witnesses. The
present case saw the prosecution relying on anonymous witness statements
without affording the accused an opportunity to cross-examine, a clear breach of
adversarial fairness.

Furthermore, the psychological and physical coercion reported during custodial

interrogation must be assessed in light of Ilascu v. Moldova and Russia39 where
the European Court held that the use of inhuman and degrading treatment to
extract evidence is a fundamental violation of Article 3 of the European
Convention, read in conjunction with fair trial guarantees.

The Petitioner emphasizes that the sum total of the aforementioned violations—
arbitrary arrest, denial of legal counsel, pre-trial detention without review,
prosecutorial misconduct, lack of disclosure, judicial bias, witness intimidation,
and absence of public scrutiny—amount to a cumulative denial of justice. The
doctrine of cumulative violations, as recognized in Ciorap v. Moldova40, is
directly applicable herein.

38
(2011) 54 EHRR 23
39
(2004) 40 EHRR 46
40
(2010) 51 EHRR 16

13
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
In conclusion, the fair trial guarantees of the accused were not merely infringed,
but systematically obliterated in a manner that offends both the letter and spirit of
international human rights law. The Petitioner prays that this Hon’ble Court take
cognizance of the gross miscarriage of justice, uphold the rule of law, and reaffirm
the State’s obligations under international legal instruments by declaring the trial
and resultant convictions as null and void.

14
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
  ISSUE 4 : Whether the police encounter constitutes an extra-judicial
killing warranting State liability to compensate?

The Petitioner respectfully submits that the alleged police encounter resulting in
the death of the accused constitutes an extra-judicial killing and amounts to a
gross and inexcusable violation of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India. Such an act, carried out under the color of State
authority, triggers the liability of the State under the framework of public law.
The doctrine of constitutional tort, which has emerged through judicial
interpretation, imposes strict liability on the State for violations of fundamental
rights committed by its agents, particularly where such actions are arbitrary,
excessive, and in flagrant disregard of due process.

In the present case, the fatal police encounter effectively bypassed the judicial
process and deprived the deceased of his inalienable right to a fair trial, legal
representation, and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. These
guarantees are not mere procedural niceties, but core elements of the
constitutional fabric. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in People’s Union for Civil
Liberties v. Union of India41 unequivocally held that every police encounter
resulting in death must be treated as a case of culpable homicide, unless
established otherwise by an independent and impartial investigation. The Court
issued binding guidelines including mandatory registration of an FIR, prompt
magisterial inquiry, and involvement of the National or State Human Rights
Commission, recognizing that unchecked police encounters erode public
confidence in the rule of law and violate the constitutional principle of
accountability.

41
[(2014) 10 SCC 635]

15
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
This Court’s jurisprudence has long recognized that custodial deaths and police
brutality strike at the heart of Article 21. In D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal42,
the Supreme Court laid down a detailed framework of safeguards to prevent
custodial torture and killings, affirming that any deviation from lawful procedure
constitutes a violation of the right to life. The Court not only imposed a duty of
care upon law enforcement officers but also acknowledged compensation as a
public law remedy for the infringement of fundamental rights. It held that the
State bears strict liability in such cases, regardless of individual culpability,
because it is the guardian of the people’s rights.

The actions of the police in the present case demonstrate a blatant subversion of
the “procedure established by law” mandated under Article 21. The accused was
allegedly detained without being produced before a Magistrate within the 24-hour
period prescribed under Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and
no judicial trial or inquiry was initiated to establish culpability. The Supreme
Court in Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P.43 emphasized that arrests and detentions
must be carried out with utmost regard for personal liberty and must be
immediately subject to judicial oversight. In the absence of such procedural
compliance, any custodial death becomes presumptively unconstitutional.

This usurpation of judicial authority by the executive not only violates the
principle of separation of powers but also reduces the judiciary’s role in
administering justice to a mere formality. The Supreme Court, in Nilabati Behera
v. State of Orissa44, held that monetary compensation is an appropriate and
necessary remedy in public law where a fundamental right, particularly the right
to life, has been violated.

42
[AIR 1997 SC 610]
43
SUPRA 16
44
[(1993) 2 SCC 746]

16
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
The Court made it clear that the object of awarding compensation is not to
substitute the private law remedy but to afford immediate relief for the harm
caused by State excesses. The judgment also reiterated that when rights under
Article 21 are infringed by custodial violence, it is not only the victim who suffers
but the entire constitutional system that stands undermined.

Additionally, the doctrine of vicarious liability of the State is firmly rooted in

Article 300 of the Constitution, which makes the Union and States liable for the
wrongful acts of their servants committed in the course of employment. In Saheli
v. Commissioner of Police45, the Supreme Court awarded compensation under
public law to the mother of a child who died due to police assault, affirming the
State’s responsibility for acts of brutality carried out by its functionaries. This
principle was further strengthened in Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar46, where the
Court ordered monetary compensation to a man illegally detained for over 14
years despite being acquitted, stating that the right to compensation flows directly
from Article 21.

India’s obligations under international human rights law, particularly the

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), further reinforce
the need for accountability in cases involving arbitrary deprivation of life. As a
signatory, India is bound by Article 6 of the ICCPR, which protects the inherent
right to life and mandates that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of their life 47.
Additionally, Article 2(3) of the ICCPR obligates State parties to provide
effective remedies for rights violations, including judicial redress and
compensation48. These international obligations have been judicially recognized

45
[(1990) 1 SCC 422]
46
[(1983) 4 SCC 141]
47
ICCPR ART. 6: Inherent Right to life
48
ICCPR ART. 2(3): Remedy

17
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
in the Indian context, as in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan49, where the Court
affirmed that international conventions not inconsistent with fundamental rights
must inform constitutional interpretation.

In the present case, the extra-judicial killing of the accused cannot be justified on
vague grounds of “self-defense” or “encounter,” particularly when there has been
no judicial examination of the facts, no independent inquiry, and no credible
evidence of imminent threat posed by the deceased. The killing fails the test of
proportionality, necessity, and legality, all of which are indispensable criteria for
the use of force by State agents under both domestic and international legal
frameworks. In the illustrative case of Saman Adhikar v. Police Officer50, the
alleged encounter occurred without a judicial warrant, investigation, or oversight,
highlighting a pattern of impunity and deliberate evasion of the legal process.

The Petitioner, a public interest organization committed to the protection of

constitutional rights, contends that the State’s conduct amounts to a State-
sponsored violation of the right to life. It is well established that public law
remedies serve not merely to compensate the victim but to affirm the primacy of
the Constitution and to deter future violations by State agents. Therefore, it is
imperative that this Hon’ble Court invoke its writ jurisdiction under Article 32 or
226, as the case may be, to ensure that compensation is paid to the family of the
deceased, a judicial inquiry is conducted under the supervision of a sitting judge,
and criminal prosecution is initiated against those responsible.

In a democratic polity governed by the rule of law, the State cannot be permitted
to arrogate to itself the power to extinguish life without recourse to judicial
process. Such actions are antithetical to the constitutional ethos and must be met
with the sternest legal consequences to preserve the dignity of the Constitution

49
[(1997) 6 SCC 241]
50
SUPRA 26

18
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
and the accountability of the executive.

19
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 PRAYER

In light of the case's facts and circumstances, it is humbly requested that this
Honorable Court feel free to:

1.Send a formal letter, order, or direction, ideally in the form of a certified

mandamus, to the respondents and state authorities demanding information
regarding the purported four rape victims who were killed in a staged
encounter by police officers.

2. Prior to submitting an official complaint, it was essential that a CBI, SIT,

CID, or other law enforcement agency from a separate state police investigate
the police personnel involved in the fake encounter killing of four purported
rape suspects.

3. Direct the independent investigating agency, by appropriate written or order

to strictly comply with the 16 guidelines issued by this Hon'ble court in the
case of " PUCL & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors". Relating to the
investigation over fake encounter killing.

20
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 AND/OR

Pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONERS AS IN DUTY

BOUND SHALL HUMBLY PRAY.

FILED BY :

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER

21
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER