1

TC – 002

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF REPUBLIC OF INDIVA

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. ____ OF 2020

IN THE MATTER OF:

Saman Adhikar & Ors. …PETITIONERS

VERSUS

State of Ankara & Ors. …RESPONDENTS

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF REPUBLIC OF

INDIVA

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. List of Abbreviations .............................................................................................. i

2. Index of Authorities ................................................................................................ ii

2.1. Cases Referred................................................................................................... ii

2.2. Books Referred.................................................................................................. iii

2.3. Statutes and Constitutional Provisions Cited……............................................. iii

2.4. International Instruments and Guidelines……................................................... iv

3. Statement of Jurisdiction........................................................................................... v

4. Statement of Facts…................................................................................................. vi

4.1. Background of the Incident................................................................................. vi

4.2. Investigative Measures and Legal Contex........................................................... vi

4.3. The Encounter and Immediate Circumstances.................................................... vii

4.4. Judicial Scrutiny and Present Proceeding............................................................ vii

5. Statement of Issues.................................................................................................... viii

6. Summary of Arguments….......................................................................................... ix

7. Arguments Advanced................................................................................................... 1

7.1. The Encounter Was a Legally Justifiable Defensive Action................................. 1

7.2. No Violation of Article 21 – Action Was Within the Framework of Law............. 4

7.3. Article 14 Does Not Extend Immunity for Violent Fugitives ................................ 6

7.4. The High Court’s Ruling Was Based on Evidence and Public Safety..................... 8

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 3

7.5. Rule of Law Includes Immediate Protective Response by Police.......................... 10

7.6. No Duty of Custodial Protection When Officers Are Attacked…......................... 12

7.7. Respondents Acted Lawfully Under Exceptional Circumstances......................... 13

8. Prayer for Relief………............................................................................................... 15

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 4

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviation Full Form

& And

AIR All India Reporter

Art./Arts. Article/Articles

CrPC Code of Criminal Procedure

FIR First Information Report

Hon’ble Honourable

ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

IPC Indian Penal Code

NHRC National Human Rights Commission

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

Ors. Others

PUCL People’s Union for Civil Liberties

SC Supreme Court

SIT Special Investigation Team

UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights

UOI Union of India

v./vs. Versus

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 5

Abbreviation Full Form

¶ Paragraph

SCC Supreme Court Cases

DGP Director General of Police

SP Superintendent of Police

SLP Special Leave Petition

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 6

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

1. CASES REFERRED

1. Om Prakash v. State of Jharkhand, (2012) 12 SCC 72

2. State of Maharashtra v. Christian Community Welfare Council, (2003) 8

SCC 546

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

4. State of U.P. v. Ram Sagar Yadav, (1985) 1 SCC 552

5. Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1994) 4 SCC 260

6. Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani, AIR 1978 SC 1025

7. K. Balakrishna v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2003) 6 SCC 636

8. People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 10 SCC

635

9. Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92

10. Shiv Kumar v. Hukam Chand, AIR 1999 SC 1696

11. • Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab, (2009) 1 SCC 441

12. • Sube Singh v. State of Haryana, (2006) 3 SCC 178

13. • Munshi Singh Gautam v. State of M.P., (2005) 9 SCC 631

14. • State of Punjab v. Ajaib Singh, AIR 1953 SC 10

15. • Prakash Kadam v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta, (2011) 6 SCC 189

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

17. • Khatri v. State of Bihar, AIR 1981 SC 1068

18. • Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat, (1991) 4 SCC 406

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 7

19. • P.S. Sadashiv Swami v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2006) 5 SCC 758
20. • Devender Pal Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2002) 5 SCC 234

2. STATUTES & CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

1. Constitution of the Republic of Indiva

– Article 14: Equality before law
– Article 21: Protection of life and personal liberty
– Article 32: Remedies for enforcement of Fundamental Rights

2. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)

– Section 96: Right of private defence
– Section 100: When the right of private defence of the body extends to
causing death
– Section 102: Commencement and continuance of the right of private
defence

3. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)

– Section 46: Arrest how made
– Section 176(1A): Inquiry into custodial death
– Section 197: Prosecution of Judges and public servants

4. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)

– Section 35: Right of private defence
– Section 37: When the right of private defence of the body extends to
causing death
– Section 39: Commencement and continuance of the right of private defence

5. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)

– Section 43: Arrest how made
– Section 176(1A): Inquiry into custodial death
– Section 218: Prosecution of Judges and public servants

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 8

3. INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS AND GUIDELINES

1. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), 1948

– Article 3: Right to life, liberty, and security of person
– Article 10: Right to a fair and public hearing

2. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 1966

– Article 6: Right to life
– Article 9: Right to liberty and security of person

3. UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, 1979

4. UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement

Officials, 1990

4. BOOKS REFERRED

1. M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, LexisNexis, 8th Edition

2. D.D. Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India, LexisNexis

3. V.N. Shukla, Constitution of India, Eastern Book Company

4. B.L. Wadhera, Public Interest Litigation – A Handbook, Universal Law

Publishing

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 9

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Respondents respectfully submit that this Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction under Article
32 of the Constitution of the Republic of Indiva. Article 321 provides a guaranteed remedy
for the enforcement of fundamental rights and empowers this Hon’ble Court to issue
appropriate writs in cases involving alleged violations thereof.

In the present matter, the Petitioners have alleged infringement of Articles 142 and 21 3of
the Constitution of the Republic of Indiva, arising from the death of four individuals during
a police operation. The Respondents, however, submit that all actions were taken in
accordance with law and within the bounds of constitutional authority.

As the highest constitutional court and the guardian of fundamental rights, this Hon’ble
Court is the appropriate forum to adjudicate on the constitutionality of the police conduct
and to determine whether any fundamental right has indeed been violated.

Therefore, the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court is rightly invoked.

1 Constitution of India, Article 32 – Right to constitutional remedies for enforcement of fundamental

right
2 Constitution of India, Article 14 – Right to equality before the law
3 Constitution of India, Article 21 – No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except

according to procedure established by law.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 10

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The Republic of Indiva is a constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law.

The State of Ankara, known for its high literacy rate and social progressiveness,
remains firmly committed to the protection of fundamental rights and public order.

2. On the night of 17 January 2020, a tragic incident occurred wherein Shrishti, a

young advocate practicing in Ankara, was brutally raped and murdered by four
men — later identified as Javed, Rajesh, Naveen, and Keshav. Her charred body
was discovered on the morning of 18 January 2020 along the Ankara-Bendakal
highway.

3. The crime provoked nationwide protests, intense public outrage, and calls for
immediate justice. Social media was flooded with demands for retribution, and law
enforcement authorities were under extreme pressure to act swiftly and
transparently.

4. The local police, acting diligently, launched an investigation and gathered credible
CCTV evidence, physical clues, and eyewitness testimonies. Based on this, the
four accused were arrested on 23 January 2020 and remanded to police custody.

5. On 3 February 2020, during transportation to court for further proceedings, the

accused allegedly snatched firearms from escorting officers, fired into the air,
and attempted to flee the scene. The police, in an immediate defensive reaction,
responded with controlled fire, resulting in the deaths of all four accused.

6. The Respondents submit that the force used was neither excessive nor unlawful,
but was a necessary reaction to a violent escape attempt that endangered the lives
of the escorting officers and others nearby. Multiple armed personnel were present,
and the use of lethal force was a last resort.

7. In response to allegations from human rights groups and the families of the
deceased, the police conducted an internal inquiry and presented detailed reports
to the High Court of Ankara. These documents corroborated the police version and
refuted claims of a staged encounter.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 11

8. The Hon’ble High Court of Ankara, after hearing all parties and reviewing the
investigation files, upheld the police action, categorizing it as “an act of bravery
and immediate reflex to a life-threatening situation.”

9. Dissatisfied with this judgment, an NGO named Saman Adhikar and the families
of the deceased filed petitions before the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 32
of the Constitution, seeking registration of a murder case and an independent
investigation.

10. The present matter, therefore, concerns a question of constitutional

interpretation and an examination of whether the Respondents’ conduct, during
an exigent and violent encounter, violated the fundamental rights of the deceased
or fell within the scope of legally permissible police action.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 12

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the police officers’ use of force resulting in the death of the four accused
constituted a lawful exercise of the right of private defence under the Indian Penal
Code, 18604 ( Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023)?

2. Whether the action of the Respondents was in accordance with the procedure
established by law and hence did not violate the right to life guaranteed under
Article 215 of the Constitution of the Republic of Indiva?

3. Whether Article 146 of the Constitution is applicable in a situation involving an

armed and violent escape attempt by the accused during lawful police custody?

4. Whether the Hon’ble High Court of Ankara erred in holding the police action as a
legitimate response to an emergent and dangerous situation?

5. Whether the Respondents discharged their constitutional and statutory duties in

good faith, without mala fide intent, and within the boundaries of law and public
safety obligations?

4 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 96–100 – Right of private defence

5 Constitution of India, Article 21 – No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
according to procedure established by law
6 Constitution of India, Article 14 – Right to equality before the law

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 13

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. The encounter was a lawful and proportionate response to an armed escape

attempt by the accused. The police exercised their right of private defence under
Sections 96 to 100 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( section 35 of Bhartiya Nyaya
Sanhita,2023), in order to prevent grave harm to themselves and others during an
unexpected and dangerous confrontation.

2. There was no violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. The Respondents acted

in accordance with procedure established by law. The deaths were not the result of
arbitrary or premeditated action but were necessitated by a life-threatening situation
created by the accused themselves.

3. Article 14 is inapplicable in cases involving violent offenders who pose an

imminent threat. The constitutional guarantee of equality before law does not
extend to situations where the conduct of individuals places them in an
extraordinary legal and factual position, such as engaging in an armed confrontation
with police.

4. The Hon’ble High Court of Ankara conducted due judicial review and rightly
found the police action to be a reflexive and constitutionally justifiable response
under exceptional circumstances. The Court acted within its authority and after
examining all relevant records and evidence.

5. The Respondents discharged their duties in good faith and in the interest of
justice, public safety, and constitutional order. There is no material to support the
allegation of mala fide intent or extra-judicial motive. Allegations made by the
Petitioners are speculative and unsupported by credible evidence.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 14

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. THE ENCOUNTER WAS A LAWFUL AND NECESSARY EXERCISE OF THE

RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE

1. The Respondents submit that the deaths of the four accused were not extrajudicial
killings, but the outcome of a sudden and violent escape attempt during lawful
custody. The accused, while being escorted to court, snatched service weapons
from police officers, opened fire, and attempted to flee. In such circumstances,
the police had no alternative but to use proportionate force in defence of life and
public safety.

2. Sections 96 to 100 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860( section 35 of Bhartiya Nyaya
Sanhita2023) , provide the right of private defence, which extends to causing death
if there is a reasonable apprehension of grievous hurt or death. The Respondents
acted within this statutory framework.

3. In State of U.P. v. Ram Sagar Yadav, (1985) 7 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court
recognized that a police officer is entitled to act in private defence when faced with
unlawful aggression, even if it results in the death of the aggressor.

4. The Respondents assert that the force used was not excessive, but proportionate
to the real and immediate threat posed by the accused, who were already under
suspicion for a heinous crime.

II. THE ACTION OF THE POLICE DID NOT VIOLATE ARTICLE 21 OF THE
CONSTITUTION

1. Article 21 of the Constitution of Republic of Indiva guarantees that no person shall

be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established
by law. The Respondents submit that this requirement was fulfilled, as the action

7 State of U.P. v. Ram Sagar Yadav, (1985) 1 SCC 552

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 15

was not arbitrary or extralegal, but arose from a life-threatening situation in the
course of official duty.

2. In Om Prakash v. State of Jharkhand, (2012)8 , the Supreme Court held that

where a person attacks a police officer in the discharge of lawful duty, and the
officer responds with force, it is not a violation of Article 21.

3. Further, the right to life under Article 21 is not absolute and must be interpreted in
light of context and necessity, especially when officers are faced with danger in
the execution of their duty.

III. ARTICLE 14 CANNOT BE INVOKED IN CASES INVOLVING ARMED

ESCAPE ATTEMPTS

1. Article 14 provides for equality before law and equal protection of the laws.
However, this protection applies to individuals who are similarly situated. The
Petitioners cannot claim parity between law-abiding citizens and accused persons
engaged in armed resistance and flight.

2. In State of Maharashtra v. Christian Community Welfare Council, (2003)9, the

Hon’ble Court clarified that Article 14 cannot be stretched to grant constitutional
protection to those who undermine the rule of law through violent means.

3. The accused, by attacking police officers and attempting to escape, created

exceptional circumstances that required an immediate and lawful response, and
thus do not fall within the standard application of Article 14.

IV. THE HIGH COURT RIGHTLY UPHELD THE POLICE ACTION AFTER
JUDICIAL SCRUTINY

8 Om Prakash v. State of Jharkhand, (2012) 12 SCC 72

9 State of Maharashtra v. Christian Community Welfare Council, (2003) 8 SCC 546
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 16

1. The Hon’ble High Court of Ankara, after reviewing all material placed before it —
including the FIR, incident reports, ballistic reports, and police statements —
concluded that the deaths occurred as a result of a spontaneous confrontation and
were not premeditated or orchestrated.

2. The High Court further held that had the police failed to act, it would have resulted
in the successful escape of the accused and a massive public law and order crisis.
The Respondents acted not out of vengeance, but to uphold the rule of law and
prevent further harm.

3. The Court’s finding that the act was one of “bravery and sudden reflex” is
supported by evidence and within judicial competence. It is not open to challenge
without concrete rebuttal evidence.

V. THE RESPONDENTS ACTED IN GOOD FAITH AND IN DISCHARGE OF

THEIR LEGAL DUTY

1. The Respondents acted in good faith while performing their statutory and
constitutional responsibilities. There is no credible evidence on record to show that
the police intended to eliminate the accused or acted with mala fide intent.

2. In Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1994) 10 , the Hon’ble Court

stressed the importance of allowing police to function within legal parameters, and
not under public pressure or unfounded suspicion.

3. Allegations made by the Petitioners are speculative, based on conjecture, and fail
to satisfy the threshold required for initiating criminal proceedings against public
servants discharging official functions in exigent circumstances.

10 Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1994) 4 SCC 260

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 17

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

In light of the facts of the case, the legal arguments advanced, and the settled principles of
constitutional and criminal law, the Respondents most respectfully pray that this Hon’ble
Court may be pleased to:

1. Dismiss the writ petition filed by the Petitioners as being devoid of merit, based
on conjecture, and not supported by any credible or admissible evidence;

2. Affirm the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Ankara, which held that the
actions of the police officers were lawful, necessary, and executed in good faith
while facing an emergent threat to public safety;

3. Hold that the Respondents acted within the scope of their statutory powers
and constitutional duties, and that no violation of Articles 14 or 21 of the
Constitution occurred in the present matter;

4. Refrain from directing any coercive or disciplinary proceedings against the

police officials involved in the incident, as such action would be unwarranted and
contrary to the facts of the case;

5. Pass any such other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem just,
proper, and necessary in the interest of justice, public order, and the rule of law.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE RESPONDENTS SHALL EVER

PRAY.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT