Petitioner - TC - 11

MEMORIALON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
TC-11
MBA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2022
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF

COMPLEXITUS
W.P.No.____/2022
Mr. Weisenheimer……………………………………………PETITIONER
v.
The Republic of Complexitus……………………………. RESPONDENT
WITH
SLP No._____/2022
Mr. Weisenheimer……………………………………………PETITIONER
v.
The Republic of Complexitus…………..……………………………. RESPONDENT
AND
W.P.No____/2022
The Sovereign…….…………………………………………PETITIONER
v.
The Republic of Complexitus……………………………. RESPONDENT
PETITIONS INVOKED U/A 32 & 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF REPUBLIC OF

COMPLEXITUS
MOST REVERENTLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HONOURABLE
SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF COMPLEXITUS
COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 7
SUMMARY OF FACTS 8
ISSUES RAISED 9
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 10
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 11
1. WHETHER THE INSTANT CASE IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE 11

HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF
COMPLEXITUS OR NOT?
2. WHETHER THE DETENTION OF MR. WISENHEIMER VALID 16

UNDER THE UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES PREVENTION ACT, 1967?
3. WHETHER THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS MENTIONED UNDER 23

THE CONSTITUTION OF COMPLEXITUS IS VIOLATED?
PRAYER 28
2
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
1. & And
2. AIR All India Report
3. Art. Article
4. Ed. Edition
5. Hon’ble Honourable
6. id. Ibidem
7. LJ Law Journal
8. No. Number
9. Ors. Others
10. Para. Paragraph
11. Pt. Point
12. Rep. Representative
13. UAPA The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act
14. w.r.t With Respect To
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
3
CASES REFERRED
i. Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC 571
ii. Daryao v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1962 SCR (1) 574.
iii. Lord Halsbury LC in Cox v. Hates (1890) 15 AC 506
iv. Barnardo v. Ford (1892) UKHL J0725-1
v. R. v. Secy. of State for Home Affairs (1963) 1 QB 829
vi. Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills. v. CIT., WB AIR 1955 SC 154
vii. Haryana State Industrial Corporation. v. Cork Mfg. Co. (2007) 8 SCC 359.
viii. Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2003)11 SCC 241.
ix. C.C.E v Standard Motor Products, (1989) AIR 1298.
x. Nihal Singh & Ors v. State Of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 26
xi. Durga Shankar Mehta v. Thakur Raghuraj Singh and Ors. AIR 1954 SC 520
xii. Union of India v. Kishorilal Gupta & Bros., AIR 1959 SC 1362.
xiii. State of Assam v. Barga Dewani, (1970) 3 SCC 236.
xiv. Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar v. UOI AIR 1981 SC 344
xv. Akhil Bhartiya Shoshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) v. UOP AIR 1981 SC 149
xvi. S.P. Gupta and Ors. v. UOI AIR 1980 SC 1622
xvii. Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v. M/S. Abdulbhai Faizullabhai & Ors AIR 1976 SC 1455
xviii. Ratlam Municipality v Vardichan AIR 1982 SC 1490
xix. Roop Chand v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 1503
xx. Hussainara Khatoon v. UOI AIR 1979 SC 1369
xxi. D.A.V. College v. State of Punjab, (1971) 2 SCC 261.
xxii. Janta Dal v. H. S. Chowdhary, AIR 1993 SC 892.
xxiii. Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2005 SC 540.
xxiv. State of Bombay V. United motors Ltd. AIR 1953 SC 252
xxv. Harbanslal Sahnia v Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd, (2003) 2 SCC 107
xxvi. State of Karnataka v Associated Management of Primary and secondary schools ,(2014)
9 SCC 485.
xxvii. Society of unaided Private School of Rajasthan v UOI, (2012) 6 SCC 1.
xxviii. Indian Express Newspaper (Bombay) P Limited v UOI ,AIR 1986 SC 515 at 527.
4
xxix. Vinod Dua v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 414.

xxx. New York Times Co. United States, 403 U.S. 713.
xxxi. Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi AIR 1950 SC 129.
xxxii. Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi AIR 1950 SC 129.
xxxiii. Kanti Kumari v State of Jharkhand, 2013 (1) Crimes 212 (214) (Jhar).
xxxiv. State of Gujarat v Shyalm Lal Mohanlal Choksi,(1965) SC 1251.
xxxv. State of Bombay v Kathi Kalu Oghad, AIR 1961 SC 1808.
xxxvi. Nandini Satpathy v PL Dani, AIR 1962 SC 1821.
xxxvii. Maneka Gandhi v UOI ,(1978) 1 SCC 248.
xxxviii. Francis Coralie v Delhi , (1981) 1 SCC 608.
xxxix. Mehmood Nayyar Azam v State of Chattisgarh (2012) 8 SCC 1.
xl. RM Malkani v State of Maharashtra (1973) 1 SCC 471.
xli. MC Mehta v UOI , (2003) 5 SCC 376.
xlii. Union of India v. K A Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713.
xliii. Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union Of India & Ors (2012) 5 scc 1
xliv. Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597
xlv. Romesh Thappar v State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 124: 1950 SCR 594
xlvi. Indian Express Newspapers v/s Union of India 1985 SCR (2) 287
xlvii. Bennett Coleman v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (1975) Cr LJ 211
xlviii. Prakash Jha Productions v Union of India (2011) 8 SCC 372
xlix. Union of India v. Assn. for Democratic Reforms 2002 (3) SCR 294
l. Vinod Dua v Union of India Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 154 of 2020
li. Jatinder Pal Singh v CBI CRL. M.C. 3118/2012
lii. People’s Union for Civil Liberties vs Union of India AIR 2003 SC 2363
STATUTES REFERRED
i. The Constitution Of India,1950
5
ii. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967

iii. The Identification Of Prisoners Act,1920
iv. The Code of Criminal Procedure Act, 1973
v. The Information Technology Act, 2000
BOOKS REFERRED
1. Black s‟ Law Dictionary, 8th edition
2. Cambridge Learners Dictionary, 1st edition
3. Constitution of India by J.N. Pandey,44th edition 2007
4. Constitution of India by D.D. Basu, 14th edition 2009
5. Constitution of India by V.N. Shukla,10th edition 2006
6. Constitutional of India by H.M. Seervai, Vol. I & II, 4th edition 2006
7. Public Interest Litigation in India by Videh Upadhyay
8. Shorter Constitution of India by D.D. Basu in the , Fourteenth Edition, 2009
1. Black s‟ Law Dictionary, 8th edition
2. Cambridge Learners Dictionary, 1st edition
3. Constitution of India by J.N. Pandey,44th edition 2007
4. Constitution of India by D.D. Basu, 14th edition 2009
5. Constitution of India by V.N. Shukla,10th edition 2006
6. Constitutional of India by H.M. Seervai, Vol. I & II, 4th edition 2006
7. Public Interest Litigation in India by Videh Upadhyay
8. Shorter Constitution of India by D.D. Basu in the , Fourteenth Edition, 2009
i. Black s‟ Law Dictionary, 8th edition
ii. Cambridge Learners Dictionary, 1st edition
iii. Constitution of India by J.N. Pandey,44th edition 2007
iv. Constitution of India by D.D. Basu, 14th edition 2009
v. Constitution of India by V.N. Shukla,10th edition 2006
vi. Constitutional of India by H.M. Seervai, Vol. I, II & III, 4th edition 2006
vii. Public Interest Litigation in India by Videh Upadhyay
viii. Shorter Constitution of India by D.D. Basu in the , Fourteenth Edition, 2009
WEBSITES REFERRED:
i. www.indiankanoon.com
6
ii. www.legalservicesindia.com
iii. www.legalblog.in
iv. www.judis.nic.in
v. www.lawyersclubindia.com
vi. www.lawctopus.com
vii. www.legalindia.com
viii. www.manupatra.com
ix. www.scconline.com
x. www.legitquest.com
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
7
I. Writ Petition No.__ of 2022- Mr.Weisenheimer v. The Republic of Complexitus

The Petitioner has filed a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of The Republic of
Complexitus in the matter of Mr.Weisenheimer v. The Republic of Complexitus under Article 32
of the Constitution of The Republic of Complexitus against the dentition made under
UPAP,1967
II. Special Leave Petition No.__ of 2022 -Mr.Weisenheimer v. The State of Mightos.
The Petitioner has filed a Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of The
Republic of Complexitus in the matter of Mr.Weisenheimer v. The State of Mightos under
Article 136 of the Constitution of The Republic of Complexitus against the judgement and Order
of the Hon’ble High Court at Mightos.
III. Writ Petition No.__ of 2022- The Sovereign v. The Republic of Complexitus
The Petitioner has filed a PIL before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of The Republic of
Complexitus in the matter of The Sovereign v. The Republic of Complexitus under Article 32 of
the Constitution of The Republic of Complexitus .
All these petitions were clubbed together by the Hon’ble Supreme Court which is backed up by
the Art.139A
SUMMARY OF FACTS
8
● The Republic of Complexitus is a tropical country in South Asia and is one of the fastest
growing economies in the world, where Mightos is a state in the Southern part of
Complexitus is considered to be one of the most developed and progressive states. There is
intense air and water pollution due to large-scale mushrooming of industries in Mightos due
to which, frequent protest against such discharge of industrial effluents where organised by
various NGOs such as the Tree Faith. Bovinedung (BPL) is a fertiliser manufacturing
company that has several reports of pollution and large-scale violation of environment law.
In June 2022 a large number of people who resided within a 10 km radius of BPL plant
started having severe respiratory problems which led to a protest by the public, which went
peacefully for eight days. It became violent on ninth day only after the foul play by the
competitors.
● Since the protest was unabated for few days after imposition of section 144 of CrPC, many
news reports mention possible firing in that area. Mr.Weizenheimer is a journalist associated
with The Sovereign, a popular news channel receives information regarding the excesses
committed by BPL and its proximity to several political leaders and addresses this same in
his 9 PM news show on 21 June 2022. However, the authorities had intercepted the calls
made/received by Mr. Weisenheimer and also leaked it to the press and then detained him
under UAPA, 1967. His detention is challenged before the Supreme Court of Complexitus,
by invoking Article 32 of the Constitution of Complexitus. The State, pursuant to an FIR,
commences investigation, collects material and thereafter, files an application before the
Special Court for a direction to Mr. Wisenheimer to provide his voice sample, which
application is allowed and a revision filed against the said order is also dismissed by the High
Court of Mightos. Challenging the same, a Special Leave Petition is filed before the Supreme
Court of Complexitus, raising several constitutional and other issues, which according the
Mr. Wisenheimer requires consideration and/or reconsideration by the Court. „The
Sovereign‟ filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Supreme Court of Complexitus
against the police and government excess vis-à-vis interception of phones of journalists and
that it violates the freedom of press.
● The Supreme Court tagged all matters together and the matter is now here.
9
ISSUES RAISED
1. WHETHER THE INSTANT CASE IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE

HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF COMPLEXITUS OR
NOT?
2. WHETHER THE DETENTION OF MR. WISENHEIMER VALID UNDER THE
UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES PREVENTION ACT, 1967?
3. WHETHER THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS MENTIONED UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION OF COMPLEXITUS IS VIOLATED?
10
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1.WHETHER THE INSTANT CASE IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF COMPLEXITUS OR NOT?
The Petitioners humbly submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of The Republic of Complexitus
has jurisdiction over the present petitions in the light of the following arguments:
a) The Writ Petition filed by Mr. Weizenheimer is maintainable under Art. 32 since it seeks the
enforcement of a fundamental right which has been violated by an act of the State.
b) The SLP filed by Mr. Weizenheimer is maintainable since it raises a substantial question of
law relating to the fundamental rights of citizens . The SLP is maintainable under Art. 136 of the
Constitution
c) The PIL filed by the news channel The Sovereign seeks for the enforcement of the
fundamental right under Art.14,Art.19(1),Art.20(3) & Art.21. Under Art. 32 of the Constitution,
the PIL is maintainable in this Hon’ble Court.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that, the detention of Mr. Wisenheimer
under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 is not valid. It is humbly submitted that
there is a use of arbitrary power of the government on Mr. Wisenheimer who had performed his
duty as journalsit.
3.WHETHER THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS MENTIONED UNDER THE

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court of Complexitus that the Freedom of
Press which is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution is violated and the
interception of the phone calls of a journalist is violative of the basic fundamental right which is
Right to privacy mentioned under Article 21 of the Complexitus Constitution and also the
fundamental rights of the people who have gathered to peacefully protest have also been violated
11
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. WHETHER THE INSTANT CASE IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE

HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF COMPLEXITUS OR
NOT?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the instant matter is maintainable before the
Court of Law and the petitioners has the essential ingredients to maintain the matters before the
apex Court.
1.1. The writ petition submitted by Mr.Weizenheimer is maintainable.

It is submitted before the Hon'ble Court that the Writ petition challenging the Constitutional
validity of the detention of Mr. Weizenheimer is maintainable before the Court.
The petitioner has approached the Supreme Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution. The power
of the executive & legislature is limited by Fundamental Rights of the citizens. 1Moreover, the
petitioner need not establish either that he has no other adequate remedy or that he has exhausted
all other remedies provided by law, as Art. 32 is a Fundamental Right in itself and therefore
existence of an alternate remedy is no bar to the Supreme Court entertaining a petition under it. 2
The right to an instant determination as to lawfulness of an existing imprisonment" is the
substantial right made available by the writ of habeas corpus. 3 Likewise in Barnardo v. Ford the
writ of habeas corpus has been described as a writ of right which is to be granted ex debito
justitiae4. Therefore, it is a writ of right, it is not a writ of course. In R. v. Secy. of State for Home
Affairs, it has been held that a person is entitled to be released on a petition of habeas corpus if
there is illegal restraint. "The question for a habeas corpus court is whether the subject is
lawfully detained. If he is not, it must issue."5
In the present case, Mr. Weizenheimer’s right to freedom of speech and expression & right to life
and personal liberty privacy guaranteed by Art. 19(1)(a) & Art.21 was violated which makes the
case maintainable.
1 Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC 571

2 Daryao v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1962 SCR (1) 574.
3 Lord Halsbury LC in Cox v. Hates (1890) 15 AC 506
4 Barnardo v. Ford (1892) UKHL J0725-1
5 R. v. Secy. of State for Home Affairs (1963) 1 QB 829
12
1.2. The special leave petition by Mr.Weizenheimer is maintainable

It is submitted that the SLP filed by Mr.Weizenheimer is maintainable where the jurisdiction of
the Supreme Court under Article 136 can always be invoked when a question of law of general
public importance arises and even a question of fact can also be a subject matter of judicial
review under Art.136. It is humbly submitted that powers under Article 136 can be exercised
against any kind of judgement or order which is causing injustice to any party, and to serve the
need, the power under Article 136 is unfettered6.
The jurisdiction conferred under Art. 136 on the SC are corrective one and not a restrictive one 7.
A duty is enjoined upon the SC to exercise its power by setting right the illegality in the
judgments is well-settled that illegality must not be allowed to be perpetrated and failure by the
Supreme Court to interfere with the same would amount to allowing the illegality to be
perpetuated8.
The SC has the residual power under Art.136 to do justice where the court is satisfied that there
is injustice9. The Supreme Court's jurisdiction is limited only by its discretion. 10 The plenitude of
power under Article 136 of the Constitution has been stated by the Constitution Bench in Durga
Shankar Mehta v. Thakur Raghuraj Singh and Ors. and the exercise of the said power by the
Court cannot be curtailed by the original constitutional provision or by any statutory provision. It
has been held in many cases that when the question of law of general public importance arises,
the jurisdiction of SC can be invoked by filing a special leave petition. In the present case, the
issue involves matters of General Public Importance and hence, entitled to be maintainable. 11
In the case at hand, the arbitrary action of the State and the High Court’s decision towards the
review of the issue raised by the petitioner have disturbed the process of public functioning & is
recurring in nature, which will amount to compulsion of an accused to provide evidences and
thereby by leaving the fundamental rights of the general public, especially the journalists at
6 Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills. v. CIT., WB AIR 1955 SC 154

7 Haryana State Industrial Corporation. v. Cork Mfg. Co. (2007) 8 SCC 359.
8 Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2003)11 SCC 241.
9 C.C.E v Standard Motor Products, (1989) AIR 1298.
10 Nihal Singh & Ors v. State Of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 26
11 Durga Shankar Mehta v. Thakur Raghuraj Singh and Ors. AIR 1954 SC 520
13
stake. Hence, the matter concerned is of great public importance and the same was reiterated by
the High court.
Besides, the self-imposed restriction that the aggrieved party must exhaust any remedy which
may be available under the law before the lower appellate authority has been satisfied 12 as the
applicant had already approached the High Court to revise the order. The High Court erred in
dismissing the petition. It is now a settled proposition that the Supreme Court will intervene in
cases where the High Court's decision is in flagrant violation of the law.13
Hence, the case involves the matter of general public importance and it directly and substantially
affects the rights of the parties as the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the
petitioner. It is humbly submitted that substantial and grave injustice has been done to the rights
of the petitioner and that the case in question presents features of sufficient gravity to warrant a
review of the decision appealed against.
1.3. The PIL filed by the news channel, The Sovereign is maintainable
The Petitioner humbly submits that Art. 32(1) of the Constitution confers the right to move the
Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by Part
The present petition seeks the enforcement of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Art.14,
Art.19(1), Art.20(3) & Art.21.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the cases of Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar v. UOI14 and
Akhil Bhartiya Shoshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) v. UOP 15 that the strict rule of Locus Standi
must be relaxed to embrace the interest of the public. In S.P. Gupta and Ors. v. UOI16 Mumbai
Kamgar Sabha v. M/S. Abdulbhai Faizullabhai & Ors17, and Ratlam Municipality v Vardichan18,
it was held that public interest is promoted by a spacious construction of locus standi. A similar
contention in favor of PIL was upheld by the court in a number of cases. Therefore, the strict rule
12 Union of India v. Kishorilal Gupta & Bros., AIR 1959 SC 1362.

13 State of Assam v. Barga Dewani, (1970) 3 SCC 236.
14 Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar v. UOI AIR 1981 SC 344
15 Akhil Bhartiya Shoshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) v. UOP AIR 1981 SC 149
16 S.P. Gupta and Ors. v. UOI AIR 1980 SC 1622
17 Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v. M/S. Abdulbhai Faizullabhai & Ors AIR 1976 SC 1455
18 Ratlam Municipality v Vardichan AIR 1982 SC 1490
14
of locus standi must be relaxed in the present case involving the rights and interest of the
journalists and general public.
And also to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the SC is not necessary that the fundamental right
must have been actually infringed- a threat to the same would be sufficient. 19By applying the
doctrine of “reasonable apprehension‟, this Hon‟ble Court may interfere directly in the said
case.If an administrative decision may put one’s fundamental rights at risk, the basis for the
decision surely calls for the most anxious scrutiny according to the principle of „anxious
scrutiny‟. Thus the petitioned filed before this apex court is maintainable.
In Hussainara Khatoon v. UOI20, the Hon'ble SC stated that "The powers of this Court in
protection of the Constitutional rights are of the widest amplitude and this Court should adopt an
activist approach and issue to the State, directions which may involve taking of positive action."
Public Interest Litigation is part of the process of participate justice and standing in civil
litigation of that pattern must have liberal reception at the judicial door steps and it is not
necessary for the petitioner to wait till the actual threat has taken place 21. A person acting bona
fide and having sufficient interest in maintaining action for judicial redress for public injury to
put the judicial machinery in motion22 and such a person will have locus standi.23 In the instant
case, the news channel, The Sovereign acted in pro bono publico and thus, the PIL is
maintainable.
1.4. Alternate remedy is not a bar

Where there is a well-founded allegation that fundamental right has been infringed, alternative
remedy is no bar for entertaining writ petition and granting relief.24
In spite of availability of the alternative remedy, the court may exercise its writ jurisdiction in at
least petitions where the petitioner seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights.
19 Roop Chand v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 1503

20 Hussainara Khatoon v. UOI AIR 1979 SC 1369
21 D.A.V. College v. State of Punjab, (1971) 2 SCC 261.
22 Janta Dal v. H. S. Chowdhary, AIR 1993 SC 892.
23 Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2005 SC 540.
24 State of Bombay V. United motors Ltd. AIR 1953 SC 252
15
“In an appropriate case, in spite of availability of the alternative remedy, the High Court may still
exercise its writ jurisdiction in cases as follows:
(i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights;
(ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice; or
(iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act
is challenged.”25
Though there are alternative remedies availables under Art.226 of the Constitution ,in this case,
there is a need for enforcement of constitutional rights in the present case as there is violation of
fundamental right of Mr.Weizenheimer and other general public guaranteed under Art.19,
Art.20(3) & Art. 21. Thus, the petitioner humbly submits that writ petition is maintainable as
alternative remedy is not a bar and the petitioner has the required locus standi.
25 Harbanslal Sahnia v Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd, (2003) 2 SCC 107
16

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that, the detention of Mr. Wisenheimer
under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 is not valid. The arrest of Mr. Wisenheimer
has taken place as per section 43 A of UAPA. It is humbly submitted that there is a use of
arbitrary power of the government on Mr. Wisenheimer, just because as a journalist he has done
his job rightly by pointing out the intricacies where the state government had failed its duty to
protect the protesters and not taking right action on Bovinedung Pvt.Ltd for violating the
environmental laws and for violating Zero Liquid Discharge conditions, they have detained
Mr.Wisenheimer for Conspiracy under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967.
2.1 The Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression is violated.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the word “ Freedom” under
Article 19 of the Constitution means absence of control of State . In all matters that is been
specified under Article 19(1) ,the citizen has a liberty to choose , subject only to restrictions
under Article 19(2) to 19(6)26. Although the Rights guaranteed under Article 19 are not absolute
and there are certain resterins , it is again to be taken into consideration that , state cannot travel
beyond contorous of clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19 of Constitution in curbing the Fundamental
Rights guaranteed under clause (1), the court is only concerned whether, the restrictions is in
excess of the requirements and whether the law has overstepped the Constitutional limitations 27.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that , out of several rights that are enumerated
under clause (1) of the Article 19, the right subclause (a) is not just a mere right of speech and
expression but a freedom to speech and expression. In India the Freedom of press is implied
from freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a). There is no specific
provision of freedom of press as such.The freedom of press is regarded as a species while
freedom of speech and expression is a genus .
26 State of Karnataka v Associated Management of Primary and secondary schools ,(2014) 9 SCC 485.
27 Society of unaided Private School of Rajasthan v UOI, (2012) 6 SCC 1.
17
The Supreme Court had laid the emphasis in several cases on importances of maintaining
freedom of press in a democratic society. The press seeks to advance public interest by
publishing facts and opinions without which a democratic electorate cannot make an responsible
judgement. It is to be taken into consideration that the articles and news are published in the
press from time to time to expose the weakness of the government, this always leads to the
suppression of freedom of press by the government. It is therefore a primary duty of the courts to
uphold the said freedom and invalidate all the administrative actions which interfere with the
freedom of press contrary to the constitutional mandate28.
The Supreme Court has emphasised that freedom of press is not so much for the benefit of the
press but it is for the benefit of the general community because the community has a right to be
supplied with the information and the government owes a duty to educate the people within the
limits of its resources. It is to be noted that , in the present case even Mr. Wisenheimer had just
did the same, he was only giving the right information to the public regarding how state
government has not done its duty in protecting the people in the protest site and also they haven't
taken any action against the BPL, for which Mr. Wisenheimer has been falsely detained under
section 43 A of UAPA Act.
It is humbly submitted that, in 2021, in the case of Vinod Dua v. Union of India 29Vinod Dua, a
late journalist, was accused of committing sedition over a YouTube video criticising the
government. He disputed the FIR, claiming that he was just exercising his constitutional rights
under Article 19(1)(a) and that the charge of sedition had not been proven. The Supreme Court
overturned the FIR and rejected a committee's request to screen FIRs against journalists. It is
humbly stated that, the same is been observed in the present case as well , because in the present
case, the journalist is merely criticising the act of government , as there is been no proper
monitoring or follow up with respect to the act of BPL and the due to the environmental issues
arising out of same , the protest is been held and then after a peaceful assembly turned into
violent assembly due to the political acquaintance and the same gave rise to death of protesters in
the protest filed. Mr. Wisenheimer had stated regarding the same and stated against the
Government , there was no ill intention or there wasn't any need to sensationalise the news for
28 Indian Express Newspaper (Bombay) P Limited v UOI ,AIR 1986 SC 515 at 527.
29 Vinod Dua v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 414.
18
Mr. Wisenheimer and the state government had alleged the same and detained him unlawfully
under Section 43A of UAPA Act.
The right of "freedom of expression" is pivotal for the media and press as the cardinal position of
the press in India is bridled by the rule of law and its critical significance has been frequently
emphasised by international human rights provisions such as Article 10(1) of the Human Rights
Act clearly states that everyone has the freedom to have opinions as well as the freedom to
receive and transmit information and ideas without interference from the government and
without respect for national borders.
Supporting this in the landmark case "New York Times Co. v. United States 30, the US Supreme
Court declared that prior restraints on newspaper publishing were unconstitutional; and parallelly
in the Brij Bhushan case31, the Indian Supreme Court had evidently proffered that prior
permission restricts the constitutional abstract of free speech, as pre- censorship of the press
would be a constraint on liberty.32 When we discuss government control over press freedom, we
usually mean things like censorship, seizure on the basis of any irregularity in the eyes of the
executive, or licence termination, among other things. However, the executive has a licence
termination, among other things. However, the executive has a number of additional tools at its
disposal to stretch its muscles and exert control or influence over press freedom.
It is humbly submitted that there is a violation of Freedom of Speech and Expression under
Article 19 and the arrest of Mr. Wisenheimer and his detention is illegal.
2.2 The Right to protection against Self incrimination is violated.
30 New York Times Co. United States, 403 U.S. 713.

31 Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi AIR 1950 SC 129.
32 Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi AIR 1950 SC 129.
19
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the detention of Mr. Wisenheimer under
UAPA Act and interception of Mr.Wisenheimer phone gives rise to self incrimination and the
Right to Protect under Self Incrimination is violated in the present case.
It is humbly submitted that, Article 20(3) of the Constitution clearly reads as , No person accused
of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself 33. On the analysis of this
provision , it is interpreted that ,
● It is available to the person.
● It is protection against compulsion to be a witness.
● It is protection against such compulsion resulting in giving evidence against himself.
It is humbly submitted that , in the present case, Mr.Wisenheimer has been compelled to give his
voice recording and his mobile phone is incepted by compulsion, only to self incriminate Mr.
Wisenheimer .
It is humbly submitted that , the Supreme Court held by a majority in a State of Gujarat v
Shyalm Lal Mohanlal Choksi34 under this provision , that accused cannot be asked to produce a
document which is in his possession. It is humbly submitted in the present case Mr.Wisenheimer
has been forced to provide his voice sample in the present case. The Hon'ble court has also
reached the conclusion that, an accused person shall not be compelled to disclose the documents
which are self incriminatory in nature35.
It is humbly submitted that, Krishna Iyer in case of Nandini Satpathy 36 advocated an expansive
expression of the phrase compelled testimony; he had stated that evidence procured not only by
physical threats or violence but the evidence procured by psychic torure , atmospheric pressure ,
environmental coercion, tiring interrogative poxity any other methods were duress is used also
leads to the self incrimination, in the present case Mr. Wisenheimer has been detained under
UAPA Act,falsely and the state has compelled him to give his voice recording under the
33 Kanti Kumari v State of Jharkhand, 2013 (1) Crimes 212 (214) (Jhar).
34 State of Gujarat v Shyalm Lal Mohanlal Choksi,(1965) SC 1251.
35 State of Bombay v Kathi Kalu Oghad, AIR 1961 SC 1808.
36 Nandini Satpathy v PL Dani, AIR 1962 SC 1821.
20
atmospheric pressure and environmental coerciosion. Hence , it is humbly submitted that Mr.
Wisenheimer’s Right to protect against Self incrimination is violated
2.3 The Right to protection of life and personal liberty is violated.
It is humbly submitted that, the right to freedom of a person comprises of,
● Protection of Life and Personal Liberty.
● Privilege against Self - incrimination.
● Right to safeguard against arbitrary arrest.
In the present case , above mentioned all the rights of the Mr.Wisenheimer is violated.It is
humbly submitted that, Post Mehnaka Gandhi case37The expression Life in Article 21 has been
interpreted by the Supreme Court in a broader and wider aspect. Justice Bhagwati 38has quoted,
We think that the right to live with human dignity and all that goes with it . A person's reputation
is also a facet of right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution 39. In the present case , the false
detention of Mr.Wisenheimer clearly states that , the fact that he is a reputed journalist and
having been dealt with many cases of important nature , this arrest had destroyed his reputation
leading to violation of Right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Hon’ble court has stated that , the telephonic conversation of the innocent citizen would be
protected by courts against wrongful or high handed interference by tapping of the conversation
by the police40 . In the present case the counsel would seek the same from the Hon’ble Court as,
the innocent citizen especially the journalist's phone has been intercepted , only because he has
brought in the nuances of failure of the functioning of the state government.
The term Personal Liberty in Article 21 is not used in a narrow sense but has been used in Article
21 as a compendious term to include within it in all those varieties of rights of a person which
goes to make up the personal liberty of a man. Liberty of an individual as to be balanced with his
duties and obligations towards his fellow citizens 41.Any law interfering with the personal liberty
must satisfy the triple test ,
● It must prescribe the procedure.
37 Maneka Gandhi v UOI ,(1978) 1 SCC 248.

38 Francis Coralie v Delhi , (1981) 1 SCC 608.
39 Mehmood Nayyar Azam v State of Chattisgarh (2012) 8 SCC 1.
40 RM Malkani v State of Maharashtra (1973) 1 SCC 471.
41 MC Mehta v UOI , (2003) 5 SCC 376.
21
● The procedure must withstand the test of one or more fundamental rights conferred under
Article 19 which may be applicable in the given situation.
● It must also be liable to be tested with reference to Article 14
2.4 The Right to safeguard against arbitrary arrest and detention is violated.
It is humbly submitted that Article 22 constituted within the right to freedom is one of the parts
of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution. This article is covered in two major
parts, protection and rights granted in case of arbitrary arrest also known as punitive detention,
and safeguards against preventive detention. The main difference is whether a person is charged
with a crime or not. In case of detention, the person is not accused of any crime but is restricted
on reasonable suspicion while in case of arrest the person is charged for a crime.
It is humbly submitted ,A person can be put in jail/custody for two reasons. One is that he has
committed a crime. Another is that he has the potential to commit a crime in the future. The
custody arising out of the latter is preventive detention and in this, a person is deemed likely to
commit a crime. Thus Preventive Detention is done before the crime has been committed.
Preventive detention is also known as ‘necessary evil’ of the constitution as it can be steered in
various directions and can be put to use in various scenarios, not all being just and reasonable. It
is the most contentious part of the fundamental rights.The provision only mentions the rights
people could exercise when they are detained but speaks nothing about any specific grounds or
necessary provisions of detention. It thus gives enormous power to the authorities to twist the
tool of preventive detention however and whenever they please. This has proved to be a way in
which the freedom of the masses has been immensely curbed and continues to be so.
It is humbly submitted that the freedom of the press is also being violated by the UAPA
legislation, and this is especially true in the state of Jammu and Kashmir where there are many
insurgency operations. Under this excuse, the government has the opportunity to accuse any
journalist or local news outlet of supporting the terrorists, which results in restrictions on their
freedom. Particularly in this state, journalism cannot be practised freely by the press. The
government has frequently shut down the internet, detained prominent politicians under the guise
of fighting terrorism, and restricted their right to free speech. Independent journalists who cover
22
these topics are likewise forbidden from working in their line of work. Under this Act, numerous
journalists are targeted, even if they only tweet. All journalists who practise their profession in
the state are subject to the legislation since the terms of the Act are divergent and ambiguous
enough to be included the same.
It is humbly submitted that the UAPA amendment gives the government the right to violate an
individual’s fundamental rights to free expression, dignity, dissent, and reputation. The burden of
proof to refute the accusations falls on the person, not the government, and anyone could be
labelled a terrorist at the government’s choice. The 2019 revisions to the Act violate Articles 14,
19(1)(a), and 21 of the Constitution, and the legislature has no right to take away a citizen’s
fundamental rights because they constitute a fundamental component of the Constitution. Due to
the journalist’s opinions and criticism of the government, the government has started taking
measures against them and accusing them of being terrorists under UAPA. The Freedom of
Speech and Expression is violated by this conduct, hence it should be restricted.
The Supreme Court concluded in Union of India v. K A Najeeb 42 (2021) that, despite the
UAPA’s restrictions on bail, constitutional courts can nevertheless grant bail if the accused’s
fundamental rights have been violated. The accused had been detained at Najeeb for more than
five years. The Court found that the rigours of UAPA bail limitations “will melt down where
there is little chance of a speedy trial and the duration of detention already served has exceeded
a substantial portion of the stipulated sentence.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble court that , the arrest and detention of Mr.
Wisenheimer is illegal and the arrest has happened only with mere suspension and hence the
counsel humbly seeks that Mr.Wisenheimer must be released from the detention.
42 Union of India v. K A Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713.
23
3.WHETHER THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS MENTIONED UNDER THE

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court of Complexitus that the
Freedom of Press which is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution is violated and
the interception of the phone calls of a journalist is violative of the basic fundamental right which
is Right to privacy mentioned under Article 21 of the Complexitus Constitution and also the
fundamental rights of the people who have gathered to peacefully protest have also been violated
3.1.Fundamental rights of the people involved in the protest have been violated
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court of Complexitus that there is a
violation of the basic fundamental rights of the people involved in the protest which is
guaranteed by the Constitution of Complexitus.
Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution deals with the provision relating to the rights of
freedom to assemble peacefully and without arms. In the present case, the protest was happening
before the BPL plant which included members and volunteers of ‘Tree Faith’. However there are
certain restrictions which are imposed by the Constitution regarding the right to assemble
peacefully and without arms which are imposed in the interests of the following: Sovereignty and
integrity of India, Security of the State, Friendly relations with foreign States, Public order,
Decency or morality, Contempt of court, Defamation and Incitement to an offence.
In Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union Of India & Ors 43. case (2012), the
Supreme Court had stated, “Citizens have a fundamental right to assembly and peaceful protest
which cannot be taken away by an arbitrary executive or legislative action”.
In the present case, the protestors have organised a peaceful protest outside the BPL plant
which was responsible for the health issues of the people who live in the radius of 10 km
surrounding the plant. The protests was peaceful for the first 8 days only highlighting their need
for a remedy and compensation for the damage caused due to discharge and the BPL was also
issued a show cause notice by the Mightos Pollution Control Board for the violation of Zero
Liquid Discharge conditions.
43 Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union Of India & Ors (2012) 5 scc 1
24
3.2.Freedom of press under Article 19(1)(a) is violated
Freedom of Press or media refers to the rights given by the Constitution of India under
the freedom and expression of speech in Article 19(1)(a). Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution
deals with the provision relating to the freedom of speech and expression.
In the case of Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India44, it was held that the phrase ‘speech and
expression’ used in Article 19(1)(a) has a broad connotation. The judgement also stated that the
right to paint or sing or to write poetry or literature is also covered by Article 19(1)(a) because
the common basic characteristics of all these activities is freedom of speech and expression. Here
in the present case, Mr.Wisenheimer has exhausted his right to speech and expression by
publicly going against the State Government for ignoring the issues faced by the people who are
living around the areas surrounding BPL. The journalist has only highlighted the excess
committed by the BPL and has also explicitly stated its proximity to several political leaders.
It is to be noted that in the case of Romesh Thappar v State of Madras45, the judgement
highlights the importance of freedom of press. In this case it was held that Freedom of speech
and of the press lay down the foundation of all democratic organisations, for without free
political discussion no public education, so essential for the proper functioning of the process of
popular Government, is possible. It was also held that the right to free press not only includes to
publish views but it also includes to dispense and circulate those views in the entire society. In
the present case, the journalist had spread those views to the society through his talk show in
which he has highlighted the excess committed by the BPL and its proximity to several political
leaders.
In Indian Express Newspapers v/s Union of India46, it has been held that the press plays a
very significant role in the democratic machinery. The courts have the duty to uphold the
freedom of press and invalidate all laws and administrative actions that abridge that freedom.
In the case of Bennett Coleman v. State of Jammu and Kashmir 47, it was held that the
right to press includes the right to comment on public affairs as was stated by the Supreme Court.
44 Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597

45 Romesh Thappar v State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 124: 1950 SCR 594
46 Indian Express Newspapers v/s Union of India 1985 SCR (2) 287
47 Bennett Coleman v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (1975) Cr LJ 211
25
The judgement also includes that the right to comment on public affairs includes the right to
criticise people holding public posts and also to criticise the public policies. By highlighting the
above mentioned precedent, the present case can also be looked under the same perspective. In
the present case, the journalist Mr. Wisenheimer is publicly going against the Government of
Mightos for ignoring the excess committed by the BPL plant and the discharge which was also a
major concern for the protest to take place. The Government did not take necessary measures to
look at the problems caused by the discharge by the plant.
In the case of Prakash Jha Productions v Union of India 48, the apex court observed that it
is the duty of the state to protect the freedom of speech and expression since it is a liberty
guaranteed against the state.
In the case of Union of India v. Assn. for Democratic Reforms 49, it was held that One-
sided information, disinformation, misinformation, and non-information, all equally create an
uninformed citizenry which makes democracy a farce. It also included that Freedom of speech
and expression includes the right to impart and receive information which includes freedom to
hold opinions. Here in the present case, the journalist Mr. Wisenheimer has only said his
opinions which may be his private or view of public opinion.
In the case of Vinod Dua v Union of India50, where the late journalist was charged with
sedition over a YouTube video he made in 2021, criticising the government. He challenged the
FIR, arguing that he was merely exercising his rights under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
A two judge bench quashed the FIR filed against the late journalist observing that the freedom of
press was the ‘heart of social and political intercourse’.
3.3.The interception of phone call and tapping of phone call of the journalist is violative in
nature
Article 21 of the Constitution of Complexitus says that “No person shall be deprived of
his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” The expression
‘personal liberty’ includes ‘right to privacy’. A citizen has a right to safeguard his personal
48 Prakash Jha Productions v Union of India (2011) 8 SCC 372

49 Union of India v. Assn. for Democratic Reforms 2002 (3) SCR 294
50 Vinod Dua v Union of India Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 154 of 2020
26
privacy, plus that of his family, education, marriage, motherhood, child bearing, and procreation,
among other matters.
The term ‘phone tapping’ also means wiretapping or interception of a phone. Phone
Tapping can only be done in an authorised manner with permission from the department
concerned. However, if it is undertaken in an unauthorised manner then it is illegal and will
result in prosecution of the person responsible for breach of privacy.
The Central Government as well as the State Governments, both of them are provided
with the right to intercept cell phones under Section 5(2) of Indian Telegraphic Act, 1885. There
are instances when an investigating authority/agency needs to record the phone conversations of
the person who is under suspicion.Such authorities are required to seek acquiescence from the
Home Ministry before moving forward with such an act. In the application to seek permission,
particular reasons need to be mentioned. Additionally, the need for interception of telephone
must be proved. Then only the ministry will consider the application and grant permission upon
estimating the merits of the application for interception.
Section 5(2) of the Act is a substantive provision that allows for wiretapping in the
interest of: (i) the sovereignty and integrity of the state (ii) security of the state (iii) friendly
relations with foreign states (iv) public order (v) preventing incitement or inducement to the
commission of an offence.
Under the Indian Telegraph Act, there is a special provision relating to the exception
which is exclusively provided for the press people and can be availed by them at any point of
time. Press messages intended to be published in India of correspondents accredited to the
Central Government or a State Government shall not be intercepted or detained, unless their
transmission has been prohibited. Here in the present case, Mr. Wisenheimer is a journalist and
the tapping or interception of his call recordings will be considered invalid.
Phone tapping is authorized by Rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph (Amendment)

Rules, 2007. In the case of the Central Government: The order can be issued by an order made
by the Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs. In the case of a
State Government: By the Secretary to the State Government in-charge of the Home Department.
In emergency situations, an order may be issued by an officer, not below the rank of a Joint
27
Secretary of India, who has been authorised by the Union Home Secretary, or the State Home
Secretary. To rule out the arbitrariness of Section 5(2) and to provide the just fair and reasonable
procedure in the ambit of Section 7(2)(b) of the Telegraph Act, 1885 the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India had ordered and directed as under the order for telephone-tapping shall only be issued by
the Home Secretary, Government of India and Home Secretaries of the State Governments. In
emergency matters, the power under Section 5(2) shall be delegated to the officer of the Home
Department to the centre and state governments.
In the case of Jatinder Pal Singh v CBI51, the Delhi High Court has held that permitting
illegally intercepted messages and audio conversations as evidence would lead to manifest
arbitrariness and promote violation of the fundamental rights of citizens.
In the case of People’s Union for Civil Liberties vs Union of India 52, the Supreme Court
dealt with the aspect of the right of the citizens to obtain information on matters relating to
public acts which is also guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a). The Supreme Court (SC)
acknowledged that telephonic conversation, whether at office or home, was a private matter and
would fall under the right to privacy and hence fundamental rights mentioned under The
Constitution Of Complexitus is violated.
51 Jatinder Pal Singh v CBI CRL. M.C. 3118/2012

52 People’s Union for Civil Liberties vs Union of India AIR 2003 SC 2363
28
PRAYER
Wherefore, in the light of the facts presented, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the
counsel on behalf of the Respondent humbly submit that Honourable Supreme Court of The
Republic of Complexitus be pleased to:
● . Declare that the Writ Petition filed by Mr. Weisenheimer, the Special Leave Petition
filed by Mr. Weizenheimer and the PIL filed by news channel, The Soverign are
maintainable in the Hon’ble Court.
● The detention of Mr.Weisenheimer under UAPA,1967 is arbitrary and unlawful
● The act police and government in interception of phones of journalists & other orders are
excessive use of force and is violative of the fundmental rights of Mr.Weisenheimer and
general public.
And pass any other relief, that Honourable Supreme Court of The Republic of Complexitus may
deem fit and proper in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.
For this act of kindness, the Respondent shall duty bound forever pray.
29

Petitioner - TC - 11

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Petitioner - TC - 11

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Petitioner - TC - 11

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MEMORIALON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MBA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2022

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF

PETITIONS INVOKED U/A 32 & 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF REPUBLIC OF

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

1. WHETHER THE INSTANT CASE IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE 11

2. WHETHER THE DETENTION OF MR. WISENHEIMER VALID 16

3. WHETHER THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS MENTIONED UNDER 23

2. AIR All India Report

10. Para. Paragraph

11. Pt. Point

12. Rep. Representative

13. UAPA The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act

14. w.r.t With Respect To

xxix. Vinod Dua v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 414.

ii. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967

I. Writ Petition No.__ of 2022- Mr.Weisenheimer v. The Republic of Complexitus

1. WHETHER THE INSTANT CASE IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE

1.WHETHER THE INSTANT CASE IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE

2. WHETHER THE DETENTION OF MR. WISENHEIMER VALID UNDER THE

3.WHETHER THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS MENTIONED UNDER THE

1. WHETHER THE INSTANT CASE IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE

1.1. The writ petition submitted by Mr.Weizenheimer is maintainable.

1 Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC 571

1.2. The special leave petition by Mr.Weizenheimer is maintainable

6 Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills. v. CIT., WB AIR 1955 SC 154

12 Union of India v. Kishorilal Gupta & Bros., AIR 1959 SC 1362.

1.4. Alternate remedy is not a bar

19 Roop Chand v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 1503

25 Harbanslal Sahnia v Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd, (2003) 2 SCC 107

2. WHETHER THE DETENTION OF MR. WISENHEIMER VALID UNDER THE

2.1 The Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression is violated.

2.2 The Right to protection against Self incrimination is violated.

30 New York Times Co. United States, 403 U.S. 713.

37 Maneka Gandhi v UOI ,(1978) 1 SCC 248.

42 Union of India v. K A Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713.

3.WHETHER THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS MENTIONED UNDER THE

3.2.Freedom of press under Article 19(1)(a) is violated

44 Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597

48 Prakash Jha Productions v Union of India (2011) 8 SCC 372

Phone tapping is authorized by Rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph (Amendment)

51 Jatinder Pal Singh v CBI CRL. M.C. 3118/2012

You might also like