1|Page

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents

Shri Dattopant Thengadi Memorial National Moot Court Competition

2024....................................................................................................................................................... 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS....................................................................................................................2

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

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

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

STATEMENT OF ISSUES...............................................................................................................12

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS......................................................................................................13

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED...........................................................................................................15

PRAYERS.........................................................................................................................................22

2|Page
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATION FULL FORM

IPC Indian Penal Code
Cr. P.C Code Of Criminal Procedure
PIL Public Interest Litigation
FIR First Information Report
SC Supreme Court
HC High Court
CJ Chief Justice
J. Justice
SLP Special Leave Petition
Ed. Editor
Vol. Volume
No. Number
Sec. Section
Art. Article
Ch. Chapter
Pt. Part
Para. Paragraph
Reg. Regulation
Sub-Sec. Sub-Section
Ex. Example
AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER
Anr. Others Parties Involved

3|Page
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES REFERENCES:

1. Delhi Transport Corporation vs DTC Mazdoor Congress, 1990

2. Public Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India Maneka Gandhi v. UOI (1978)
3. Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corp
4. Kartar Singh Vs State of Punjab
5. Himanshu Singh Sabharva v. Daula M. and Ors
6. Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Anr vs State Of Gujarat,
7. Kishore Samrite vs State of U.P.2013
8. Narendra Singh v. State of M. P.
9. Ranjit Singh Sharma v. State of Maharashtra
10. Manu Sharma v. State (NCT) of Delhi
11. Chandra Shekhar v. State of Himachal Pradesh
12. Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 3 SCC 22
13. “PUCL & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors
14. Satyavir Singh Rathi vs. State through CBI reported in (2011) 6 SCC 1)
15. Prakash Kadam and ors. Vs. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta and Anr.
16. R.S. Sodhi v. State of U.P
17. Prakash Kadam v. Ramprasad Vishwa Gupta
18. Om Prakash v. State of Jharkhand,
19. Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana
20. Parkash Singh v. State of Punjab
21. PUCL v. State of Maharashtra & Ors
22. Mrs Kalyani Baskar vs Mrs M. S. Sampoornam
23. State of U.P. v. Naresh and Ors
24. Kali Ram v. State of H. P Om Prakash v. State of Haryana

4|Page
25. Extrajudicial execution victim families association v. Union of India (2016): AIR
2016 SC 2490.
26. DK Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)
27. PUCL v. State of Rajasthan (2013)
28. EP Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974)
29. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 1978
30. National Central Co-operative Bank v. Ajay Kumar
31. Fateh Singh v. State of Rajasthan[
32. Om Kumar v. Union of India
33. Anuradha Bhasin v union of India
34. Chaitanya Kalbagh and Ors. V. State of UP and Or
35. B.G. Verghese vs Union of India and ors
36. Manjeet Singh v. State of H.P., (2014)
37. Ram Kishan And Ors. vs The State Of Rajasthan on 8 May, 2007
38. The State Of Rajasthan vs Ramswaroop And Ors. on 17 July, 19841984 WLN UC
2553
39. U.J.S. Chopra vs State of Bombay on 25 March, 1955, 1955 AIR 633, 1955 SCR (2)
94
40. Anwar Ali Sarkar vs The State Of West Bengal on 28 August, 1951
41. D.B. Bhappu vs Parasmal Nemaji Bhimani(1976) 78 BOMLR 5006
42. Mallikarjun Reddy vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 February, 2014, 2014 AIR 538,
195
43. Shiv sidharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh (may 16,2023)
44. Raju prosad sarma v. State of Assam ( August 26,2023)
45. Patricia mukhim v. State of maghalaya ( March 26, 2023)
46. Navalakha v. Union of India ( January 18, 2023)
47. Vyas v. State of gujrat ( September 15, 2023 )
48. Shirin R.K. v. State of Kerala ( September 19, 2019)
49. S. Sudin v. Union of India and others (October 29, 2014)
50. Banashree gogoi v. Union of India (December 19, 2019)
51. Umesh Kumar v. State of uttarakhand ( October 27, 2020)
52. Ram v. Union of India ( may 21, 2020)
53. Indibility Creative Pvt Ltd v. Govt of West Bengal April 11, 2019

5|Page
 54. Foundation for media professionals v. Union territory of Jammu and Kashmir and anr.
( May 11, 2020 )
55. Software freedom law center, India v. State of jharkhand (September 11,2023)
56. Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India case (2020).
57. Raj Narain vs State of UP (1975)
58. Raj Narain vs State of UP (1975)
59. K.Kathiresan vs. The State Of Tamilnadu on 14 August, 2018
60. M/S Jk Security Systems vs Ut Of J&K & Ors on 24 February, 2021
61. Aashna Verma vs Union Of India & Ors on 13 December, 2023
62. M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India on 22 March, 2022
63. Kumar Kundan And Anr vs State Of Haryana on 9 November, 2020
64. Bansashree Gogoi v. Union of India
65. SP Sampath Kumar vs. Union Of India (1987)
66. Keshav Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay (1953)

STATUTES:

1) United Nations Convention on Human Rights (UN) - This international treaty is

referenced concerning parameters for juvenile justice and children's rights.
2) Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Various sections of the IPC are cited concerning
criminal offenses, including Sections 304, 326, and 354, read with Section 34, which
deal with specific charges against the accused.
3) Constitution of India, Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty.

4) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 156(3): Procedure for investigation of

cognizable offenses without arrest.

WEBSITES:

❖ http://indiacode.nic.in/

6|Page
 ❖ http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/

❖ http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/

❖ http://www.manupatra.com/

❖ https://www.westlawindia.com/

❖ https://www.scconline.com/

❖ https://treaties.un.org/

❖ https://www.icj-cij.org/

❖ https://scholar.google.com/

❖ https://www.lexisnexis.com/

❖ https://www.nludelhi.ac.in/

❖ https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rightschild
❖ https://www.ohchr.org/en

❖ https://www.lawnn.com/top-20-landmark-judgements-international-law/ ❖
https://judgments.ecourts.gov.in/
❖
❖ ARTICLES:
❖ Report of the National Commission to Review the Working of the Juvenile Justice
System (2012)
❖ Juvenile Justice in India: A Critical Review (2017)

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

May It Please Honorable Court, The Appellants, Fairs Right Association & Free Cost
Internet have invoked the jurisdiction of this HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SWACH

7|Page
RASHTRA UNDER ARTICLE 132 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SWACH
RASHTRA 19501.

The Respondents, in this case, reserve the right to contest the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble
Court. Article 132 of the Constitution of Swatchh Rastra empowers the Supreme Court in the
following terms: The Petitioners, aggrieved by the judgments passed the High Court,
approach this Hon’ble Court, seeking justice and redressal of their grievances. They submit
that this Hon’ble Court has the authority to adjudicate on the issues raised in this matter, and
they seek fair and unbiased consideration of their claims. In light of this constitutional
provision, the Petitioners approach this Honorable Court seeking justice and remedy against
the judgments rendered by High Court. They respectfully submit that this Honorable Court
possesses the authority to adjudicate the matters in contention and humbly request a fair and
impartial consideration of their claims.

Therefore, respectfully submitted, the Honorable Supreme Court of Swatchh Rastra has
jurisdiction to hear this case.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Subject: In The Matter of Fair Rights Organisation & ors. v. State of Meraki.

In the exalted presence of this HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF SWACH

RASHTRA, we, as learned counsel representing the Petitioner, approach with profound
respect and unwavering deference. With a deep sense of acknowledgment for the esteemed
eminence of this Court and a keen awareness of the solemnity of the issues before us, we
humbly submit this Statement of Facts. The authority vested in this august institution is
unparalleled, and we hold our duty in addressing this Court with the utmost reverence,
recognizing the gravity and significance of the present matter.
1
“Article 132. Special Leave to Appeal by the Supreme Court. (1) Notwithstanding Anything in This
Chapter, The Supreme Court May, In Its Discretion, Grant Special Leave to Appeal from Any Judgment,
Decree, Determination, Sentence, or Order in Any Cause or Matter Passed or Made by Any Court or
Tribunal in The Territory of Swatchh Rastra.
(2) Nothing In Clause (1) Shall Apply to Any Judgment, Determination, Sentence, Or Order Passed Or Made By
Any Court Or Tribunal Constituted By Or Under Any Law Relating To The Armed Forces.

8|Page
1) Factual Background:

a) Gunda Lal, a notorious criminal engaged in various criminal activities in the city of
'Gendewala' in the State of Meraki, gained political power by winning independent
Parliamentary Elections held by 'Swatchh Rastra.' Despite facing numerous criminal
charges, he managed to escape legal consequences due to his influence and
intimidation, leading to public frustration. Eventually, he was arrested, but his
criminal operations persisted from jail, allegedly with the assistance of corrupt police
officials, businessmen, and politicians.
b) In a shocking turn of events, Gunda Lal and his gang attacked the house of Heer
Manchandani, a prominent business tycoon, with an improvised explosive device
(IED). Manchandani survived the attack and filed a police report, identifying the
members of Gunda Lal's gang.
c) The subsequent arrests and court appearances of Gunda Lal and his gang members
were marred by mysterious deaths during police custody. These incidents sparked
controversy, with media speculations suggesting the involvement of the Meraki
Government in orchestrating fake encounters to eliminate criminals. Public opinion
was divided, with some applauding the police's actions as necessary for maintaining
law and order, while others condemned them as extra-judicial killings.
d) To address security concerns, the authorities decided to keep the timings of Gunda
Lal's court appearances secret. However, during one such transfer, a crowd of
journalists gathered, leading to chaos. Gunda Lal seized the opportunity to escape
temporarily but was shot dead by the police, garnering both praise and criticism.
e) Investigations revealed that two individuals posing as journalists were involved in the
incident, and the police acted in self-defense. The use of a sophisticated weapon from
Hunterrland, costing over Rs. 8 lakhs and banned in Swachh Rastra, further
complicated the situation.
f) Despite the High Court of Meraki justifying the police's actions as an act of bravery
and self-defense, public outrage grew. Families of the deceased, along with an NGO
named "Fair Rights Organization," filed petitions challenging the extra-judicial
killings in the Hon'ble High Court of Meraki. The court, however, supported the
police's actions, leading to further protests.

9|Page
 g) In response to ongoing protests, the Ministry of Home Affairs imposed multiple
internet shutdowns in Gendewala, citing public emergency grounds. This move
prompted legal challenges, with the High Court of Meraki upholding the internet
shutdown's validity, a decision later contested in the Supreme Court of Swatchh
Rastra.
h) Simultaneously, the NGO and the families of the deceased appealed to the Supreme
Court, asserting violations of human rights and fundamental rights. The National
Human Rights Commission of Swatchh Rastra also intervened, and all these petitions
are currently pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Swatchh Rastra.

2) Authorities Approached:

➢ High Court Writ Petition: Both Free Cost Internet Association and Fair Rights
Organisation filed the writ petition against the Government of Meraki for their breach
of Fundamental Rights and extra judicial killings , and questioning the legality them .
➢ Appeal in Supreme Court: The above stated parties have approached the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of Swach Rashtra due to miscarriage of justice at the lower court.
➢ National Human Rights Commission: A Human Welfare Organization supported
Gunda Lal’s case, emphasizing his accused status and advocating for a fair trial and
right to be heard and represented.

Legal Significance of the Facts

The facts of this case are legally significant because they establish that Vikranth's rights under
the Constitution of Swach Rashtra were violated. The legal significance of the provided facts
in the context of Gunda lal case is profound. Gunda lal’s accused status, a crucial fact,
triggers specific legal protections outlined in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974.

The denial of these protections raises concerns about adherence to fundamental legal
safeguards meant to ensure a fair trial for minors.

10 | P a g e
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

In the present Appeal (Criminal), the following pivotal questions of law, akin to compass
points in the vast expanse of justice, stand poised for illumination before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of Swach Rashtra. These inquiries, like beacons of truth, seek the guiding
hand of this esteemed Court to navigate the intricate waters of jurisprudence, ensuring the
petitioner’s plea finds resonance in the hallowed halls of justice.

ISSUES RAISED IS AS FOLLOWS: -

ISSUE 1

WHETHER THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT

OF SWACH RASHTRA IS VALID OR NOT?

ISSUE 2

WHETHER THE ACTION OF POLICE OF MERAKI IS VALID OR NOT?

ISSUE 3

WHETHER THE BAN ON INTERNET IS A BREACH OF FUNDAMENTAL

RIGHTS OF THE CITIZEN OF MERAKI?

11 | P a g e
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Issue 1: Whether the present appeal filed before the Hon’ble Court of Swach rashtra is
valid or not?

It is respectfully submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the question of jurisdiction is
central to the present case. The Appellants, the Supreme Court of Swach Rashtra ,
unquestionably possesses jurisdiction to adjudicate this matter under Article 132 of the
Constitution of Swach Rashtra. Article 132 expressly empowers the Supreme Court to
entertain appeals from any court in Swach Rahstra, providing a legal basis for the current
proceedings. The case at hand raises critical concerns regarding the fundamental human
rights of 5 deceased facing criminal charges and the rights of citizens in State of
Meraki.These infractions underscore the imperative for safeguarding the rights as enshrined
in the Constitution of Swach Rahstra. The Supreme Court, with its historical commitment to
upholding rights, has consistently emphasized the need for special legal protections for
minors within the criminal justice system. This case stands as a pivotal opportunity for the
Supreme Court to enhance and elucidate the legal framework pertaining to the human rights
of offenders. The Court’s definitive ruling in this instance holds profound implications for the
futures of accused of crimes, marking a significant stride toward reinforcing the
jurisprudence surrounding their constitutional protections.

Issue 2: Whether The Action of Police Of Meraki Is Valid Or Not?

The counsel humbly submits that the action of police of eraki is highly reprehensible. The
saviours have turned into a killer leading to losses of 5 lives. The council also highlights the
facts of the case along with the factors of fundamental rights which were infringed by the
Police of Meraki. As per the facts of the case, the police has shot the five accused during the
fake encounters making it prima facie evident that they were deprived of Right to life which
cannot be compromised at any cost. It is the responsibility of the state to prove that someone
is guilty, not for someone who is accused of a crime to prove their innocence. Equally, it is

12 | P a g e
the responsibility of the state to prove that someone should be detained. People should not be
coerced into confessing to a crime or to incriminate themselves through abusive interrogation
tactics or by the threat of enhanced punishment for the assertion of fundamental rights. In
general, if someone exercises their right to silence, it should not be used as evidence of guilt
or as a reason to place them in pre-trial detention, and nor should they be penalised for it.

Issue 3: Whether the Ban on Internet is a breach of Fundamental rights of the citizens
of Meraki?

The council humbly submits that the action of government of Meraki is not at all valid in
nature, it is leading to a lot of fundamental breaches of innocent people who are not even a
part of the issues in Meraki. Internet shutdowns are deliberate disruptions of internet or
electronic communications, rendering them inaccessible or effectively unusable, for a specific
population or within a location, often to exert control over the flow of information. They can
affect mobile internet, broadband internet, or both. There is no conclusive evidence that
internet shutdowns lead to the preservation or restoration of public order.In fact, internet
shutdowns can have the opposite effect of creating more resentment, frustration, and anger
among the people.

13 | P a g e
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1) Whether the present appeal filed before the Hon’ble Court of Swach rashtra is
valid or not?

The Petitioner, the Supreme Court of Swach Rashtra, has jurisdiction to hear this case
under Article 132 of the Constitution of Swach Rashtra. Article 132 gives the Supreme
Court the power to hear appeals from any court in Swach Rashtra2.

The present case raises important questions about the human rights of Gunda Lal accused
of crimes. In this matter there are clear violations of Gunda lal's and 4 other deceased
rights under the Constitution of Swach Rahstra .

The Supreme Court has a long history of upholding the rights of the accused. In a number
of landmark cases, the Court has held that accused are entitled to special protections
under the law. The Court has also stated that it is important to distinguish between
accused and criminals when it comes to criminal justice.

As observed in SP Sampath Kumar vs. Union Of India (1987), in this case the Supreme
Court of India had held that an appeal under Article 132 can only be filed in cases where a
certificate is issued by the High Court which mentions that the case involves a substantial
question of law.

Further, in Keshav Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay (1953), it was
concluded that an appeal under Article 132 can only be filed against the final judgement
of the High Court. The question of jurisdiction is paramount to the integrity of legal
proceedings. In the case at hand, the Supreme Court of Swach Rashtra, our esteemed
Appellants, undeniably possesses jurisdiction over this matter. This authority is grounded

2
Constitution of Swach Rahstra, art. 132.

14 | P a g e
in the constitutional mandate of Article 132 of the Constitution of Swach Rashtra, an
unequivocal grant of appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court.

Moreover, the case's factual background reinforces the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. The
incident, trial, and subsequent appeal all occurred within the territorial boundaries of
Swach Rashtra. The alleged offenses, the investigation, and the entire judicial process
transpired under Swach Rashtra's legal framework. Hence, it is inherent that the Supreme
Court of Swach Rashtra, as the highest judicial body within the nation, has both the
responsibility and authority to adjudicate upon matters transpiring within its borders.

Furthermore, the importance of this case in shaping accused rights within Swach Rashtra
emphasizes the necessity of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. The case not only involves
the interpretation of national laws but also delves into the international realm, considering
Swach Rashtra's commitment as a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the
Rights of the Humans (UNCRC). The determination of the Court in this matter will
significantly influence the jurisprudence surrounding juvenile rights and criminal
proceedings.

In essence, the very fabric of justice within Swach Rashtra demands the Supreme Court's
intervention in this case. The jurisdiction of the Appellants is not merely a matter of legal
interpretation but an essential element in upholding the rule of law, ensuring fair trials,
and safeguarding the rights of the accused. The foundation of this jurisdiction lies not
only in constitutional provisions but also in the imperatives of justice and the protection
of human rights, elements fundamental to the legal system of Swach Rashtra.

In the present case, the Supreme Court has a clear duty to hear Gunda lal’s case. Gunda
lal’s is an accused who has been denied his fundamental rights under the Constitution of
India. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land and has a special responsibility
to protect the rights of all citizens, including juveniles.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, it is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that the
Appellant has jurisdiction to hear this case. The case raises important questions about the
human rights of accused of crimes. The Supreme Court has a long history of upholding
the rights of accused and has a special responsibility to protect the rights of all citizens.

15 | P a g e
The Supreme Court also has jurisdiction to hear Gunda Lal’s and other appellants under
international law. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Human guarantees
a number of rights to human, including the right to a fair trial and the right to be free from
torture.

2) Whether the action of police of Meraki is valid or not?

1. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the actions taken by the police
were erroneous as it is a violation of the rule of law in a democratic society, the police
cannot be allowed to become a mode of delivering final justice or to become a
punishing Authority. The power of punishment is only vested in the hands of the
Judiciary. The police when become DARE DEVILS then the entire Rule of law
collapses and generates fear in the minds of people against the police which is very
dangerous for democracy and this also results in further crime so similarly in our case,
the police who have the duty to protect or save the members of the society itself
became the killers of the 5 accused.
2. RULE OF LAW- The rule of law requires criminal laws to be enforced uniformly.
This can mean that special measures are needed to give some people a fair chance to
present their defense.
3. The rule of law is a compact legal term. In essence, it means that the executive and
other authorities in power do practice equity and reasonableness as standards in their
dealings and actions. Also, the rule of law assumes that certain principles of law
should be the basis for the conduct and attitude on the part of the executive and other
authorities in their dealings with the members of the public.
4. In the case of Delhi Transport Corporation vs DTC Mazdoor Congress, 19903
Hon’ble Apex Court stated that “under the Indian constitution scheme the word ‘law’
is a social engineering to remove the existing imbalance and to further the progress,
serving the needs of the socialist democratic country, under the rule of law.
5. In the case of Public Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India 4, the 7 judges
Bench of the Supreme Court stated while discussing extra-judicial killings and held
that not even a State can violate the right to life and obligation to follow the procedure
established by law under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Court opined that

3
Delhi Transport Corporation vs DTC Mazdoor Congress, 1990
4
Public Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India

16 | P a g e
 encounter killings by the police must be investigated independently as it “affects the
credibility of the rule of law and the administration of the criminal justice system.”
6. As per the facts of the case, the police shot the five accused during the fake
encounters making it prima facie evident that they were deprived of the Right to life
which cannot be compromised at any cost.
7. There are certain fundamental rights of the accused person under the constitution of
India. These are given to all, irrespective of the facts if a person is accused of a crime.
Therefore, till the time the crime is proven, there are certain rights of the person
accused of crimes like the Right to a free, fair, and speedy trial, the Right to Consult a
Legal Practitioner, the Right to have Bail, the Right of Free Legal Aid, etc. which
seen violated.
8. In the case of Maneka Gandhi v. UOI (1978)5, “the apex court observed that article
21 not only protects the person against the substantive law but also extends the
protection to the procedure laid down which must be fair, just and reasonable.” The
rights guaranteed under Article 21 are not merely fundamental rights but also human
rights.
9. Article 21 of _____ clearly states that no person shall be deprived of his life and
personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. This means that
a fair criminal trial, judgment based on evidence, an opportunity for the accused to be
heard, appeal provisions to rectify the trial court’s verdict, etc. are necessary before a
person is punished. Fake or staged encounters empower the police to play the role of a
judge and executioner and lead to a direct violation of Article 21 as the procedure
established by law is not followed in such a case.
10. But in the present case, there is a clear violation of the fundamental rights of the
Gunda Lal, Shanu, Bhanu, Hira Singh, and Moti Lal. Hence, the action taken by
the Police of Meraki was Invalid and it is questioned on the credibility of the Rule of
Law and judicial system of Meraki.
11. In Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corp.6, the Supreme Court has again
emphasized that “the procedure prescribed by law for the deprivation of the right
conferred by Article 21 must be fair, just and reasonable”. The procedure prescribed
by law for depriving a person of his right to life must conform to the norms of justice
and fair play. “Procedure which is unjust or unfair in the circumstances of the case,
5
Maneka Gandhi v. UOI (1978)
6
Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corp.

17 | P a g e
 attracts the vice of unreasonableness, thereby vitiating the law which prescribes that
procedure and consequently, the action taken under it”.
12. The Supreme Court in the case of Kartar Singh Vs State of Punjab 7 has asserted
that the procedure contemplated by Article 21 is that it must be “right, just and Fair”
and not arbitrary, fanciful, or oppressive. In order for the procedure to be right, just,
and fair, it must conform to natural justice. The expression “procedure established by
law” extends both to substantive as well as procedural law. A procedure not fulfilling
these attributes is no procedure at all in the eyes of Article 21.
13. Killing by the police of Meraki was a violation of the fundamental human right
to life. It is also a violation of the right to a fair trial and due process of law. When the
police are found to have been involved in this type of situation, it can damage public
trust in law enforcement. This can lead to increased mistrust and hostility towards the
police. If the public loses trust in the police, they may be less likely to cooperate with
law enforcement in investigations. This can lead to an increase in crime and a
decrease in public safety such incidents lead to the rise of revenge feelings against
society, government, and police leading to the rise of new criminals.
14. Extra-judicial killings, in a State governed by the rule of law, should be considered an
abomination. The Constitution guarantees the right to equality under Article 14 and
the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 which can be taken away only by
the procedure established by law.
15. The Latin maxim, ‘Audi Alteram Partem’ is the principle of natural justice where
every person gets a chance of being heard. The meaning of the maxim itself says no
person shall be condemned unheard. Hence, no case or judgment can be decided
without listening to the point of another party.
16. The principle of Audi Alteram Partem is the basic concept of the principle of natural
justice. This doctrine states that no one shall be condemned unheard. This ensures a
fair hearing and fair justice for both parties. Under this doctrine, both the parties have
the right to speak. No decision can be declared without hearing both the parties. This
principle aims to give an opportunity to both parties to defend themselves. But in the
present case where this principle of natural justice is excluded, and no option was
given to Gunda Lal, Shanu, Bhanu, Hira Singh, and Moti Lal to speak. Natural justice
means that justice should be given to both parties in a just, fair, and reasonable

7
Kartar Singh Vs State of Punjab

18 | P a g e
 manner. Before the court, both the parties were equal and had an equal opportunity to
represent them which was violated in this case.
17. In the case of Himanshu Singh Sabharva v. Daula M. and Ors8, the Supreme Court
has held that if the court has grounds to believe that the prosecuting agency or the
public prosecutor is not acting in accordance with fair trial procedures as prescribed
by law, then the court can exercise its power under Section 165 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 to uphold the cause of justice.
18. In the case of Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Anr vs State of Gujarat 9, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that “the principle of fair trial now informs and energizes many
areas of the law. It is reflected in numerous rules and practices.... fair trial obviously
would mean a trial before an impartial Judge, a fair prosecutor, and an atmosphere of
judicial calm. Fair trial means a trial in which bias or prejudice for or against the
accused, the witnesses, or the cause which is being tried is eliminated.” The concept
of fair trial entails familiar triangulation of interests of the accused, the victim, and the
society and it is the community that acts through the State and prosecuting agencies.
Most of these safeguards to ensure a fair trial are contained under the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 which contains and defines the procedure which must be
followed in criminal cases.
19. In the case of Kishore Samrite vs State of U.P.201310, the SC has observed that “The
Audi alteram partem rule, in essence, enforces the equality clause in Article 14 and it
is applicable not only to Quasi–judicial bodies but also to administrative orders
adversely affecting the party in question unless the rule has been excluded by the Act
in question.
20. In the present case, all five accused were killed before being heard in a court of law,
that also unconstitutionally. Therefore, the action of the police was both arbitrary and
unreasonable and it also wholly ignored and set aside the Audi alterem partem rule,
and thus, it violated Article 14.
21. Justice is never alien to rights. Justice rests on the anvil of equal rights and liabilities,
therefore, in criminal trials rights of both parties have to be balanced to meet the ends
of justice. Being negligent or biased towards anyone's right will lead to a miscarriage
of justice. A defendant/convict/accused has the right to be presumed innocent until
8
Himanshu Singh Sabharva v. Daula M. and Ors
9
Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Anr vs State of Gujarat
10
Kishore Samrite vs State of U.P.2013

19 | P a g e
 proven guilty and this is a central tenet of our criminal justice system. Where there is
no presumption of innocence, it would go against the principles of a fair trial, as
per Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, as well as against the right to live with
dignity, since a reverse burden would infringe on it.
22. In the case of Narendra Singh v. State of M. P.11, a Division Bench held that the
presumption of innocence was a human right and that the prosecution always
carries the burden of proof. A similar view was held in Ranjit Singh Sharma v.
State of Maharashtra12, where the Court stated that Article 21 not only ensures
protection of life and personal liberty, but also of a fair procedure, and the liberty of a
person should not be intruded unless there is legitimate ground to do so.
23. During the 2000s, the Supreme Court stuck with the stance that the right to be
presumed innocent is only a human right, in relation to the accused in a trial, which
was reflected in a few judgments. It was only in 2010, that the first judgment,
of Manu Sharma v. State (NCT) of Delhi13, where the Court was considering the
impact of a media trial on the accused, came with a view that destruction of the
presumption of innocence of the accused would go against the rule of law as well as
Article 21 of the Constitution. Subsequently, A Constitution Bench expressed, in clear
words, that the presumption of innocence principle is a part of the rule of law under
Article 14 and the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
24. In the case of Chandra Shekhar v. State of Himachal Pradesh 14, the Hon’ble Court
has stated That the freedom of an individual is of utmost importance and cannot be
curtailed for an indefinite period, especially when guilt, if any, is yet to be proved. It
is settled law that till such time the guilt of a person is proved; he is deemed to be
innocent.
25. In the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 3 SCC 2215 Hon’ble Court
stated that A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of
innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty.
However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been

11
Narendra Singh v. State of M. P.
12
Ranjit Singh Sharma v. State of Maharashtra
13
Manu Sharma v. State (NCT) of Delhi
14
Chandra Shekhar v. State of Himachal Pradesh
15
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 3 SCC 22

20 | P a g e
 placed on an accused with regard to some specific offenses but that is another matter
and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offenses.
26. Further Extrajudicial killings or fake encounters are a blot on the judiciary system of
our country. There are a lot of incidents in India where these killings are happening
and are against the basic principle of human rights in India. Extrajudicial killings are
generally referred to as cases where the state kills citizens with no judicial
examination or oversight. These killings are arbitrary against the principle of the rule
of law. The International Covenant on Civil and political Rights (ICCPR), To
which India is a signatory, prohibits these killings and calls them as arbitrary
deprivation of life and personal liberty.
27. In the case of “PUCL & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors 16”. reported in
(2014) 10 SCC 635 has held and observed that: - “Article 21 of the Constitution of
India guarantees “right to live with human dignity”. Any violation of human rights is
viewed seriously by this Court as the right to life is the most precious right guaranteed
by Article 21 of the Constitution. The guarantee by Article 21 is available to every
person and even the State has no authority to violate that right.
28. In the case of Satyavir Singh Rathi vs. State through CBI reported in (2011) 6
SCC 1)17, the matter before this Court arose from the First Information Report (for
short, “FIR”) registered against police personnel involved in a shoot-out for an
offense punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”).
In the complaint, it was alleged that the police officials had surrounded the car and
had fired indiscriminately and without cause at the occupants, killing the two and
causing grievous injuries to the third. This Court concurred with the High Court and
the trial Court on the conviction under Section 302 IPC and rejected the defence set
up by the accused persons relying on Exception 3 in Section 300 IPC as it was found
to be not in good faith or due discharge of their duty.
29. In the case of Prakash Kadam and ors. Vs. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta and
Anr18. As reported in (2011(6 SCC 189, the allegation was that the accused persons
decided to eliminate the deceased in a false police encounter. The Court noted that
this was a very serious case wherein prima facie some police officers and staff were
engaged by some private persons to kill their opponent and the police officers and the

16
PUCL & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors
17
Satyavir Singh Rathi vs. State through CBI reported in (2011) 6 SCC 1)
18
Prakash Kadam and ors. Vs. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta and Anr

21 | P a g e
 staff acted as contract killers for them. The Court warned policemen that they would
not be excused for committing murder in the name of “encounter” on the pretext that
they were carrying out the orders of their superior officers or politicians. The Court
said that the “encounter” philosophy is a criminal philosophy.
30. The Supreme Court has repeatedly condemned extrajudicial killings of alleged
criminals by police officers. In 1992, investigations into such killings in the U.P.
were entrusted by the Supreme Court in R.S. Sodhi v. State of U.P 19to the Central
Bureau of Investigation to bring credibility and independence to the process. In 2011,
the Supreme Court in Prakash Kadam v. Ramprasad Vishwa Gupta20 said
that when an extrajudicial execution is proved against policemen in a trial, they must
be given the death sentence.
31. Even in 2012, the Supreme Court in Om Prakash v. State of Jharkhand,21 held that
extrajudicial killings are not legal under our criminal justice administration system
and equated it to state-sponsored terrorism. The accused person must be put on trial
which puts a duty on the police not to kill the person but to arrest him. However, it
attracts the question of fleeing suspects for which the non-vital parts of the body
should be the main target when there has been no injury to any policemen. The
relevant example here is Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana22 dealt with by the
Supreme Court under which the encounter by the Haryana police was fake.
32. It is often observed that police authorities protect their officers by not initiating proper
proceedings against them as Section-197 CrPC requires the sanction of the competent
authority for the same but in this regard, the Supreme Court in Parkash Singh v.
State of Punjab23 clearly stated that no prior sanction is required where the act has
been carried out for personal benefits.

33. Again in 2014, the Supreme Court in PUCL v. State of Maharashtra &
Ors.24 Reiterated that killings in the encounters by police affect the credibility of the
rule of law and the administration of the criminal justice system. And in furtherance

19
R.S. Sodhi v. State of U.P
20
Prakash Kadam v. Ramprasad Vishwa Gupta
21
Om Prakash v. State of Jharkhand
22
Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana
23
Parkash Singh v. State of Punjab
24
PUCL v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

22 | P a g e
 of the same, the Supreme Court also issued 16-point guidelines which include
preserving pieces of evidence, registering FIR without any delay, video graphing the
post-mortem, independent investigation, conducting a magisterial inquiry, and
ensuring an expeditious conclusion of a trial.

Conclusion
34. Similarly in our case, the police of Meraki was disproportionate in terms of power to
use against those five accused and this action of the police was arbitrary and unjust.
Also, it was their duty to arrest the accused by using appropriate power, even if the
situation escalates worse police should shoot at non-vital parts of the accused which is
considered an ideal method but, in the present case, the police wholly unfollowed the
criminal justice system, and blemished the judicial system.
35. These barbaric deaths by police officials must be stopped as police have no authority
to give the penalty to the accused person. Thus, there is a need for strict laws against it
and an inquiry must be set up to investigate the causes of death in this case which
occurred in the course of police actions. The need of the hour is to rebuild the lost
trust in the justice delivery mechanism in the country and fast-track the process.

3) Whether the Ban on Internet is a breach of Fundamental rights of the citizens of

Meraki?

The council humbly submits that the action of government of meraki is not at all valid in
nature, it is leading to a lot of fundamental breaches of innocent people who are not even
a part of the issues in meraki.
Internet shutdowns violate Fundamental Rights under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)
(g).
36. Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, read with Temporary Suspension
of Telecom Services (Public Emergency and Public Safety) Rules, 2017:
a) These rules allow the union or state home secretary to order the suspension of any
telegraph service (including internet) in case of public emergency or public safety.
b) Such an order must be reviewed by a committee within five days and cannot last
for more than 15 days. In an urgent situation, an officer of joint secretary level or
above, authorized by the union or state home secretary, can issue the order.
37. Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:

23 | P a g e
 a) This section empowers a district magistrate, a sub-divisional magistrate or any
other executive magistrate specially empowered by the state government to issue
orders to prevent or stop any nuisance or disturbance of public tranquility.
b) Such orders can include the suspension of internet services in a particular area for
a specified period.
39. The freedom of speech and expression and freedom to practice any profession over
the medium of the internet enjoys constitutional protection under Article 19(1)(a) and
Article 19(1)(g) - the Supreme Court in Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India case (2020).
40. Internet Shutdown also violates Right to Information which has been declared as a
Fundamental Right under Article 19 by the Supreme Court in Raj Narain vs State of UP
(1975) case.
41. Internet Shutdowns also violate the Right to Internet which was declared a
Fundamental Right under Article 21 by the Kerala High Court in Faheema Shirin v. State
of Kerala case.

Right to Internet Access and Digital Literacy

Recently, the Kerala High Court, in Faheema Shirin v. the State of Kerala case, declared
the right to Internet access as a fundamental right forming a part of the right to privacy
and the right to education under Article 21 of the Constitution.
42. The court held that, in an information society, unequal access to the Internet creates
and reproduces socio-economic exclusions. Internet Shutdown also violates Right to
Information which has been declared as a Fundamental Right under Article 19 by the
Supreme Court in Raj Narain vs State of UP (1975) case.
Offering services online has cost and efficiency benefits for the government and also
allows citizens to bypass lower-level government bureaucracy.
a) It increases the accountability and transparency of the government.
b) It leads to better public service delivery.
c) It increases participation of citizenry into politics. etc.
d) In a global economy, knowledge of digital processes transforms the way in which
people work, collaborate, consume information, and entertain themselves.
e) It will also augment the government’s efforts to provide better education, health and
employment opportunities.
f) It also helps in socio-cultural mobilisation in Indian society.
Recently, due to the information revolution, many businesses and services have become
digital and only some of them are available online.
1. The digital divide emanating from information poverty, lack of infrastructure, and
lack of digital literacy leads to social and economic backwardness.

24 | P a g e
2. The digital divide can be seen throughout the socio-economic spectrum of India i.e.
between rural and urban India, rich and poor, India’s demographic profile (old and
young, male and female).
 According to the Deloitte report, ‘Digital India: Unlocking the Trillion Dollar
Opportunity’ in mid-2016, digital literacy in India was less than 10%.
 Also, in the absence of Internet access and digital literacy enabling that access, there
will be the further exclusion of large parts of the population, exacerbating the already
existing digital divide.
 Even though the government has provided various e-services at grassroots through
common service centres, without internet access and digital literacy, these are of no
use.

Why the Right to Internet Access Should be a Fundamental Right?

 Curbing Inequality is the basis of social justice and development.
 Also, reducing inequality also finds mention in Articles 39 of the directive principle of
state policy, in the Indian Constitution.
 It has now become a settled judicial practice to read fundamental rights along with
directive principles with a view to defining the scope and ambit of the former.
 Right to Internet access and digital literacy is important to get rid of the digital divide
and allow citizens increased access to information, services, and the creation of better
livelihood opportunities.
 The government has acknowledged the digital revolution and is in pursuit of
digital inclusion.
1. Internet shutdowns undermine democracy and accountability, as they
prevent citizens from accessing information, expressing opinions,
participating in public debates, and holding authorities responsible for their
actions.
a. Internet shutdowns can also enable authoritarian governments to
silence critics and create distorted information echo chambers.
2. Many critics have argued that internet shutdowns are ineffective and
counterproductive, as they do not address the root causes of the problems
that they are supposed to solve.
a. For example, internet shutdowns do not stop violence or terrorism,
but rather fuel anger and resentment among the affected populations.
b. Internet shutdowns also do not prevent misinformation or hate speech,
but rather create information vacuums that can be exploited by
malicious actors.

25 | P a g e
 3. Internet shutdowns are arbitrary and prone to abuse, as they are often
imposed without following due process, transparency, or judicial oversight.
Many internet shutdowns are ordered by local authorities who do not have
the legal power to do so.
a. Internet shutdowns also lack clear and objective criteria, duration,
and scope, making them susceptible to political interference and
human rights violations

Orders of Supreme Courts-

In January 2020 the Supreme Court by ruling on Jammu and Kashmir Internet shutdown
held that indefinite internet shutdowns by the State is not permissible under Indian
Constitution and it’s an abuse of power. The apex Court further stated that imposition
of Section144 cannot be used as a mechanism to avoid genuine protest which is permitted
under the Constitution.

Key Highlights of the orders:

• Usage of the Internet is the Fundamental Right under Article 19 of the Indian
Constitution.
• Internet shutdowns can be of temporary period but not for indefinite period.
• Government to publish all orders imposing restrictions under Section 144.
• The Court had also said that any order with regard to Internet Shutdowns will
come under Judicial Scrutiny.
The council humbly submits some statistics of the internet ban and its effects-
Impact on education with internet ban
https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/Implications-of-Internet-Bans-on-Online-
Education-Addressing-Constitutional-Conflicts-and-Educational-Rights
https://thewire.in/tech/india-remains-internet-shutdown-capital-of-the-world-for-fifth-
year-running-report
https://thewire.in/government/mapping-the-rising-internet-shutdowns-in-india-since-2016
https://freespeechcollective.in/internet-shutdowns-scar-the-economy-healthcare-and-
education/
worldwide internet ban
https://www.mediadefence.org/news/15-years-of-impact-internet-shutdowns/

26 | P a g e
Internet shutdowns: UN report details ‘dramatic’ impact on people’s lives and human
rights https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2022/06/internet-shutdowns-un-report-
details-dramatic-impact-peoples-lives-and-human
https://www.mediadefence.org/ereader/publications/advanced-modules-on-digital-rights-
and-freedom-of-expression-online/module-2-restricting-access-and-content/internet-
shutdowns/
Internet shutdowns are deliberate disruptions of internet or electronic communications,
rendering them inaccessible or effectively unusable, for a specific population or within a
location, often to exert control over the flow of information. They can affect mobile
internet, broadband internet, or both.
Human rights watch has said that no internet means no work no pay no food.
https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/06/14/no-internet-means-no-work-no-pay-no-food/
internet-shutdowns-deny-access-basic
Responding to a query on the frequent internet bans in India, former Intelligence Bureau
chief and member of National Human Rights Commission Rajiv Jain reportedly stated
that the right to life is sometimes in conflict with the right to freedom of expression and
right to privacy “When there is a threat to life of a large group of people or in a large
geographical area, primacy has to be given to Right to Life as the state acts as
repository of all the rights and takes a call on temporary suspension of Internet,” he
said, according to Economic Times.
In the case of Foundation for Media professional’s vs Union Territory of Jammu And ...
on 11 May, 2020- This Court, vide its earlier judgment dated 10.01.2020 in Anuradha
Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) SCC Online SC 25, gave certain directions regarding the
imposition of restrictions on the internet in a proportionate manner. The aforesaid case
had, in addition to the procedural rules, supplemented the requirements of having timely
review and the non¬permanence of internet shutdown orders. The three Petitioners before
us are aggrieved by the fact that Respondent No. 1 has restricted the mobile internet speed
to 2G and have approached this Court seeking 4G mobile internet, and the quashing of the
impugned orders restricting internet in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.

2. Before the Madurai Bench of Madras ... vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 14 August,
2018- Mr.A.Kannan, learned counsel for petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.11391 of 2018,
relying on the judgment of Apex Court in People's Union for Civil Liberties and another
v. State of Maharashtra and others [2014 (10) SCC 635], submitted that cases be
registered for offence u/s.302 IPC. Learned counsel further submitted that passage of time
would facilitate erasing of evidence.
35. Learned counsel for petitioner in W.P(MD).No.11399 of 2018 submitted that after the
Police shooting on 22.05.2018, internet services had been cut off between 23.05.2018 to
27.05.2018. On 23.05.2018 one had been shot dead at Annanagar and another at
Theresapuram. He alleged that internet shutdown was to screen such wrong doing.
Learned Additional Advocate General intervened to submit that none had been shot dead

27 | P a g e
on 23.05.2018 and the incident at Theresapuram was of 22.05.2018. Learned counsel for
petitioner would continue and state that 93 persons had wrongfully been taken from
Kumarareddy Palayam to the Varasanadu Firing Range and the Judicial Magistrate had
gone there and 65 persons were remanded in a mechanical manner. On 25.05.2018 this
Court directed the District Legal Service Authority, Tuticorin to make necessary
arrangements to provide legal assistance to persons belonging to family of the
victims/remanded prisoners and needy persons, as the case may be. The aforesaid
exercise was to be undertaken by the District Legal Service Authority by availing the
services of the panel lawyers of the District Legal Service Authority, Tuticorin, under
monitoring by the Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi with Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Tuticorin.
3. Aashna Verma vs Union Of India & Ors on 13 December, 2023- Learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that respondent no.4-Aryabhatta College, on
05.08.2023, appears to have sent an e-mail requiring the petitioner to answer certain
queries by 2:00 p.m. However, the mail itself was received in the petitioner's inbox on
05.08.2023 at 3:32 p.m. He, therefore, submits that by no stretch of imagination, the
petitioner could have replied to the aforesaid query before 2:00 p.m. He further submits
that when the e-mail was noticed by the petitioner, she immediately replied at 9:48 p.m.
While drawing the attention of this court towards deteriorated law and order situation
prevailing during the aforesaid period in the State of Haryana, he submits that the
shutdown of the internet services also adversely affected the smooth functioning of the e-
mail facility and has resulted in cancellation of the petitioner's admission.
4. M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India on 22 March, 2022- The registering authorities are
directed to consider the applications for registration of BS VI diesel light and heavy-duty
vehicles for public utility and essential services in accordance with law without insisting
on the applicants approaching this Court for suitable orders.
I.As are, accordingly, allowed. IA NO. 121722/2020:
The applicant is a dealer of two wheelers and has filed this application for registration of
BS IV vehicles. For some of the vehicles, the details have been uploaded on E-vahan but
requisite fees has not been paid. For the others, the details were not uploaded on E-vahan
due to lock-down and Internet shutdown in Kashmir.

6. Kumar Kundan And Anr vs State Of Haryana on 9 November, 2020

7. Bansashree Gogoi v. Union of India

Passed on – 19 December 2019

Bench – Justice Manojit Nhuyan and Justice Soumitra Saikia

28 | P a g e
Facts – In this case, several PILs were filed in the Guwahati High Court against the
suspension of internet services in Assam. The Hon’ble Court clubbed all of them together
and listened to them under this case. In this case, the petitioners requested the Hon’ble
Court to restore the internet services as they were not able to carry out their day-to-day
functions properly. The petitioners argued before the Court that as the curfew had already
been lifted and there were no violent protests, the internet shutdown should also be lifted.
Judgment – The Hon’ble Court ordered the government to immediately lift the internet
shutdown. While giving this order, the Court considered that in the interest of the public
and its safety, the government could suspend the internet services but as the situation was
peaceful the government could not impose such unnecessary restrictions.
The council would like to highlight the certain Impacts of Internet Shutdowns-
Impacts Freedom of Expression and Information:
Internet shutdowns violate the right to free expression and information, which is
guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and Article 19 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.
Economic Impact:
Internet shutdowns also have very real economic costs that impact individuals as well as
the country at large. They directly contribute to economic loss and unemployment,
especially for those who depend on online platforms for their livelihoods. They also
disrupt digital payments, online services, e-commerce, education, health care, and other
sectors that rely on internet connectivity.
According to one estimate by Top10VPN.com, a UK-based digital privacy group, internet
shutdowns cost India over Rs 20,000 crore ($2.8 billion) in 2020 alone.
Internet shutdowns also deepen the digital divide between those who have access to
reliable and affordable internet and those who do not. They disproportionately affect
marginalised groups such as rural populations, women, minorities, low-income
households, and people with disabilities. They also contradict the government’s vision of
a Digital India that aims to empower citizens through digital public infrastructure and
services.
In this landmark case of Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India (2020), the Supreme Court
delivered a significant judgment, recognizing that the right to free speech and the right to
carry out trade and business through the internet are fundamental rights protected under
Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, respectively.
The court also held that internet shutdowns are subject to constitutional scrutiny and must
adhere to the principles of necessity and proportionality. The court emphasized that any
restriction on internet access must be based on relevant material facts and be the least
restrictive measure to achieve the objective sought.
The judgment laid down guidelines to ensure that internet shutdowns are not imposed
indefinitely, and any order suspending internet services must be published and subject to

29 | P a g e
judicial review. The judgment provided a significant legal precedent and framework for
evaluating the legality and constitutionality of internet shutdowns in India.
Foundation for Media Professionals v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir (2020):
In this case, the Supreme Court of India directed the Jammu and Kashmir administration
to review all existing restrictions on internet access, stating that the right to internet
access is a fundamental right and must be respected.
Internet Freedom Foundation v. Union of India (2020):
The Supreme Court of India heard a petition filed by the Internet Freedom Foundation
(IFF) challenging the internet shutdowns in various parts of the country, including during
the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).
The court issued notice to the government, seeking a response to the IFF's contentions.
Violating Human Rights:
The Kerala High Court in Faheema Shirin v/s State of Kerala case recognised the right to
internet access as a fundamental right that is part of the right to privacy and the right to
education under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Internet shutdowns infringe on these rights and limit people’s ability to communicate,
express, learn, and access information.
Imposing Social Costs:
Internet shutdowns affect essential services such as education, health, public services, etc.
that rely on internet connectivity.
Internet shutdowns also create a digital divide and disparity in education, especially
during the Covid-19 pandemic when online learning has become crucial.
Failing to Achieve the Objective:
There is no conclusive evidence that internet shutdowns lead to the preservation or
restoration of public order.
In fact, internet shutdowns can have the opposite effect of creating more resentment,
frustration, and anger among the people.
Creating Social Chaos- Shutting the internet results in a lack of information and
transparency that can also cause panic and hysteria. It can also hamper the efforts of civil
society, media, and human rights defenders to monitor and report on the situation on the
ground.
Conclusion:
For the foregoing reasons, it is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that Vikranth
and Siddhart cannot be convicted as accused. The prosecution has failed to prove their
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Their conviction should be overturned and they should
be acquitted.

30 | P a g e
 PRAYER

Prayer for Relief

Wherefore, it is prayed in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, and authorities
cited hereinabove, that the Appellant most respectfully prays before this Hon’ble Court to:

❖ DECLARE, that the present appeal is maintainable in the Hon’ble Court of Swachh
Rashtra.
❖ ORDER, to set aside the judgments pronounced by the High Court of Meraki against
the appellants.
❖ ORDER, the immediate transfer of the case to CBI, considering the absence of a fair
trial and extra-judicial killings of the accused.
❖ DIRECT, the authorities to conduct a comprehensive review of Gunde Lal’ & ors.
case, taking into account his accused status and the principles enshrined in the
Constitution of Swachh Rashtra & NHRC.
❖ GRANT, any other relief, remedy, or order that this Hon’ble Court deems just,
equitable, and appropriate, including but not limited to compensation for the unjust
detention, legal costs, and any other consequential relief.
❖ DECLARE, the ban on internet was a breach of Fundamental right of the innocent
citizens of Meraki.

And/or

Pass any other order or direction, whether interim or final, that this Hon’ble Court deems
fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, fairness, and
equity.

31 | P a g e
“ALL OF WHICH IS MOST HUMBLY AND RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED”

PLACE: SUPREME COURT, SWACH RASHTRA

DATE: 2nd January,2024

Sd/-

COUNSELS ON BEHALF OF APPEALANTS

32 | P a g e