Team Code G

Central University Of South Bihar

School of Law and Governance
INTRA-MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

Before the Supreme Court

Of
Union of Megoliyana

IN THE PROCEEDING BETWEEN

Association for Citizens Welfare

APPLICANT
Union of Megoliyana
... RESPONDENT
MEMORIAL FOR APPLICANT

1|Page
Memorial for Applicant
 Table of Contents

Table of Contents.2
List of Abbreviation.3
Index of Authorities.4
Statement of Jurisdiction.5
Statement of Facts..6
Issues Raised......7
Summary of Arguments.....8
Prayer for Relief.........

LIST OF ABBREVIATION

Honble Honourable
I.T. Information Technology
p. Page No.
S.C.C. Supreme Court Cases
S.C.R. Supreme Court Reporter
u/s Under Section
w.e.f. With effect from
CCTV Clossed Circuit Camera

2|Page
Memorial for Applicant
 Index of Authorities

Legislations and Rules Referred

1. The Constitution of India, 1950
2. The Information Technology Act, 2000
3. Code of Criminal Procedure,1973
4. Indian penal code,1860

Cases Referred

1. M.P Sharma v. Satish Chandra

2. NandiniSatpathy v. P.L.Dani
3. Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar
4. Kharak Singh v. State of U.P
5. Gobind v. State of M.P.
6. R.Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu
7. Malak Singh v. State of Punjab

Books Referred

1. J.N. Pandey, Constitutional law of India

2. M.P. Jain ,The Constitution of India
3. S.L. Mishra, Indian Penal Code

3|Page
Memorial for Applicant
 Statement of Jurisdiction

,
The Applicant, Association for Citizens Welfare humbly submits to the jurisdiction of the
Honorable Court of Megoliyana under Article 32 of the Constitution.

Statement of Facts

4|Page
Memorial for Applicant
 Megoliyana a colony of British Empire was freed on 14th August 1947.It comprised of
510 princely states which were given option to remain independent or to join the union of
Megoliyana. Most of them were not initially willing but after the promise of Home
Minister they joined by surrendering three subjects law and order, army and security to
Union and adopted a parliamentary system of government. Due to culture differences
various exemptions were given to protect their identity as a Fundamental right in the
Constitution.
The constitution was final authority in deciding any issue relating to law and governance.
Among all the states Pan-Goa was most literate, influenced by western culture and open
minded state. But in this liberal society of Pan-Goa developed various cases of Divorce,
extra-marital practices and live-in-relationship.
On 14 November, 2010 a new government was formed under Megoliyana Traditional
People Party which was conservative in ideology. It issued guidelines to authorities to
install CCTV cameras in all public places in name of cultural degradation and moral of
the country.
It aroused uproar and protest especially from Pan-Goa government. It also issued new
regulation to monitor all celebration and that state have a right to ask for decryption
password of encrypted data from anyone. So in response, protest march was organized in
Pan-Goa under leadership of CM in which all CCTV were broken and an encrypted video
containing slangs was uploaded on social networking sites.
Union government deployed Central Para military force which arrested many people in
violation of criminal procedure and without court permission and they were forced to
give password of decryption. Also Pan-Goa government was dismissed on ground of law
And order and Central Investigation department was ordered to take necessary steps. A
registered NGO Association for Citizens Welfare filed a writ petition under Article 32
before the Supreme Court of Megoliyana challenging the Constitutional validity of the
acts of the Union of Megoliyana.

5|Page
Memorial for Applicant
 Issues Raised

1.Whether the installation CCTV cameras leads to violation of right to privacy?

1.1 CCTV camera installation violative the privacy of citizens?

2. Whether the removal of CM of Pan Goa hurt the basic fabric of constitution?
3. Whether password of encrypted data violates right to self- incrimination?

6|Page
Memorial for Applicant
 Summary of Arguments

1. Whether the installation of CCTV cameras leads to the violation of right to privacy.
Firstly, it will hurt the freedom of citizen of Megoliyana to do anything.
Secondly, it will hurt the modesty and decency of citizen.
2. Whether removal of CM of Pan Goa hurt the basic fabric of constitution?
Firstly, removal can be done when there is breakdown of constitutional machinery.
Secondly, removal cannot be done on the basis of breakdown of administrative machinery.
As CM shall not be removed on the administrative ground.
3. Whether password of encrypted data violates right to self incrimination?
Password should be given only to state or other agency for the safety of state as state has
given power to maintain their secrecy by their own.
If it is given to union it will hamper the privacy of the state.

7|Page
Memorial for Applicant
 Written Submission

1. Whether the installation of CCTV Cameras for

If CCTV cameras installed in public places there will be violation of our privacy as there is
art. 21right to privacy as our fundamental right which says that no person shall be deprived
of his life or personal liberty except that according to procedure established by law.
This installation will hamper our modesty and decency and our privacy to do anything as
referred in case of Malak Singh vs State of Punjab1 which court held that surveillance may
be instructive it may seriously encroach on the privacy of citizen as to infringe personal
Liberty.

As we know, the people of Pan Goa are very open minded and literate and to live free and save
their culture but the new government who are due to their conservative mindset installed the
cameras for protecting the moral and culture of the country. This is a clear violation of right to
privacy under Art 21 as fundamental right of India is same as of Megoliyana. Surveillance may
be distructive as it may seriously encroach the privacy and modesty of citizen of Megoliyana.
As in case of Malak Singh vs State of Punjab. In this case court held that Surveillance may
encroach on the privacy of a citizen as it infringe his fundamental rights of personal liberty.
CCTV surveillance leads to violation of personal liberty and has proved ineffective and led to
various crimes and must be regulated. Guaranteed by article [article 21,article 19(1)]which
prescribe the mode of surveillance permits close watch over the movement of the person under
survelliance of but without any illegal interference .there is one another case related to it
Govind v State of MP court held that petitioner alleys that several false cases have been filled
against him in criminal courts by the police but he acquitted in all but true one basis of that he is
a habitual criminal the criminal the police have opened a history shut against him that he has
been surveillance.

1
1981 AIR 760, 1981 SCR (1) 311

8|Page
Memorial for Applicant
 Even they questioned on the personal liberty of an individual but, what the person
will do, what is there culture that should not be special. The government is not giving them there
personal liberty.
People are not accepting there guidelines for installing cameras.
2. Whether the removal of CM of Pan Goa hurt the basic fabric of constitution?
Removal of CM of Pan Goa is unconstitutional as in the guidelines laid down. He cannot
be removed as the guidelines laid down by the SC that the elected government can be
removed on the basis of the breakdown of constitutional machinery and not the
breakdown of administrative machinery. As in the case of S.R Bomai v Union of India2.
was a landmark judgement Supreme Court of India, attempted to curb blatant misuse of
Article 356 of the constitution of India which allowed President rule to be imposed over
the state government. Supreme court had to be determined whether the presidential
proclamation under article 356 was justiciable and so if to what extend.
Supreme court laid down certain guidelines as to prevent the misuse of article 356 of the
constitution. Some of the guidelines are mentioned below.
(1)The majority enjoyed by the council of minister shall be tested on the floor.
(2) Center should give a warning to the state and a time period of one week.
(3) The court cannot question the advice tendered by the coms to the president but it can
question the material behind the satisfaction of the president.
For judicial review:-
(a) Is there any material behind the proclamation.
(b) Is the material relevant.
(c) Was there any malafide use of power.
The court held that the Article 356 is justified only when there is a breakdown of
constitutional machinery and not administrative machinery. Article 356 shall be used
sparingly by the center, otherwise it is likely to destroy the constitutional structure
between the center and the states.
3. Whether password of encrypted data violates right to self -incrimination?

2
( [1994]2 SCR 644:AIR 1994SC)

9|Page
Memorial for Applicant
 In this I agree with the state that the password should be given to the state or any other
agency should be established which will keep check on it and there will be no encryption of
data if password will be there with the state or agency established with that. As we know that
they are installing CCTV cameras forceabily even in temples, mosques, churches,
gurudwaras, and several other public places. This is again objectionable because no
government can enforce there. Just because
Government is conservative, it cant enforce there will be guidelines and control behaviour of
people. As we know that there is no such instances in Pan Goa, that the union government
can question on the people of that state. In the article 20(3) that is right to self incrimination.
Related to this there is a case Nandani Sathpathy v P.L.
Dani, in this case it was held that Nandani Satpathy3 former chief minister of Orissa against
whom the case has been registered under the prevention of corruption act was asked to
appear before the Deputy Supritendent. The police wanted to interrogate her by giving
Her a string of question in writing. She refused to answer the questionnaire on the grounds
that it was a violation of her fundamental right against self incrimination.
SC held that Art 20(3) of constitution lays down that no person shall be compelled to be
witness against herself or himself. Section 161(2)
of the criminal procedure,1973(CrPC) casts a duty on a person to truthfully answer all
questions, except those which establish personal
guilt to an investigating officer.

3
1978 AIR 1025, 1978 SCR (3) 608

10 | P a g e
Memorial for Applicant
 Prayer for Relief

In light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, applicants most humbly
request the Supreme Court of Megolia to adjudge and declare that:
direct the union of Megoliyana to take away the CCTV cameras from the places of recreation,
beaches and religios places.

11 | P a g e
Memorial for Applicant