1. THAT THE PETITION FILED BY MR.

ROOSE BOLTON IS NOT

MAINTAINABLE

1. The matter filed under Art 32 of the constitution1 is not maintainable as it does not violate
any Fundamental rights of the petitioner. In the present case, there has been no violation
of the FR of the petitioner, since the action taken by the State government is totally based
on the principles of social justice and thus cannot be considered as violative of
Fundamental Rihgts.

The Supreme Court has original2, appellate3 and advisory4 jurisdiction. Its exclusive
original jurisdiction extends to any dispute between the Government of India and one or
more States or between the Government of India and any State or States on one side and
one or more States on the other or between two or more States, if and insofar as the
dispute involves any question (whether of law or of fact) on which the existence or extent
of a legal right depends.

2. In addition, Article 325 of the Constitution gives an extensive original jurisdiction to the
Supreme Court in regard to enforcement of FR. It is empowered to issue directions,
orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus6 , mandamus7, prohibition8,
quo warranto9 and certiorari10 to enforce them. The Supreme Court has been conferred
with power to direct transfer of any civil or criminal case from one State High Court to

1
Constitution of Westeros, Pari material to Constitution of India (Herein after referred as Constitution).
2
Power to hear cases for the first time.
3
Overrule decisions of trial court
4
Seek opinion on question of law
5
Indian Const. Art. 32
6
A writ requiring a person under arrest to be brought before a judge or into court, especially to secure the person's
release unless lawful grounds are shown for their detention.
7
A judicial writ issued as a command to an inferior court or ordering a person to perform a public or statutory duty.
8
The action of forbidding something, especially by law.
9
A writ or legal action requiring a person to show by what warrant an office or franchise is held, claimed, or
exercised.
10
A writ or order by which a higher court reviews a case tried in a lower court.
"An order of certiorari"
 another State High Court or from a Court subordinate to another State High Court. The
Supreme Court, if satisfied that cases involving the same or substantially the same
questions of law are pending before it and one or more High Courts or before two or
more High Courts and that such questions are substantial questions of general
importance, may withdraw a case or cases pending before the High Court or High Courts
and dispose of all such cases itself.11

3. Taking Article 14 into consideration, it says that a reasonable classification is permitted

based on reasonable and intelligible differentia on a rational basis.

“Article 14 forbids class legislation but does not forbid reasonable classification which
means : It must be based on reasonable and intelligible differentia; and such differentia
must be on a rational basis. It must have nexus to the object of the Act.12”
4. In the present case, the Sansa’s law was applicable only on those who have been
convicted under a sexual offence, and allowed the State to keep a record of all such
convicts by compelling them to register under the Act. It is not applicable to the whole of
the society, but only to those who have a criminal record. The Act only classifies sexual
offenders and hence, this qualifies as a reasonable classification with an intelligible
differentia which is not arbitrary in nature. The objective behind enacting Sansa’s Law is
the protection of children against sexual offences. Hence, there is no violation of article
14 of the petitioner.
5. Article 19(1)(g)13, which is the right to profession of the petitioner, there is no question of
challenging the Act for the unemployment faced by the petitioner. While making laws,
the State tries to ascertain what effect the Act might have on its objects. Thus, the law
was enacted with proper safeguards to the convicts. The information of their registration
as sexual offender has been kept confidential with the respective authorities and shall not
be disclosed to a third person, unless needed. A non-disclosure form was also signed by
the person to whom the information has been disclosed. Hence, preserving the right to
privacy of the offenders, guaranteed under article 21.

11
https://www.sci.gov.in/jurisdiction(accessed on 22nd July,2019, 2:00 P.M.)
12
Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar AIR 1958 SC 538
13
The right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business
 It should be taken into account that Mr. Roose Bolton worked at a local hospital which
does not fall under public employment under State. Hence, it was not an instrument of the
State and therefore, simply the petitioner cannot argue upon the violation of his right to
profession.
6. In the case of Anuj Garg v Hotel Association of India14, it was observed,“The
constitutional validity of a law is to be decided as per societal conditions prevalent at the
relevant time. Changed social psyche and expectations are important factors to be
considered in the upkeep of law”
7. In the case before us, the massive outrage of the public in the aftermath of Sansa’s rape
and murder case, demanding stringent actions against sexual offenders, persuaded the
government to introduce the Sexual Offenders Disclosure Act, 2018, also known as
Sansa’s law. Hence, under these circumstances it can clearly be said that after so many
incidents relating to sexual offences happened in the country, the societal conditions had
changed and demanded from the government stricter laws to ensure the safety of their
children. The public burst into outrage expecting a stringent action from the government
against the sexual offenders. Hence, Sansa’s law holds good in law and its validity cannot
be challenged.
8. In the case of LIC of India v. Consumer Education and Research Centre,15 it was
observed as- “While Determining the constitutionality of a statute, there is a presumption
of constitutionality in favor of the legislation. Therefore, the burden to prove that the
enacted law offends fundamental rights is on the one who questions the constitutionality
and shows that despite the presumption of constitutionality, the statute is unfair, unjust
and unreasonable. Declaring the Law unconstitutional is one of the last resorts taken by
courts.”
Going by the above statement, although the petitioner has challenged the Act on its
constitutionality, there is no scope of presumption that the Act was unfair, unjust and
unreasonable in nature. Sansa’s Law was fair on every part of it as it was based on
reasonable classification of the sexual offenders from the others. The reason for the very
enactment of the Act was justified as to provide protection to children against sexual

14
AIR 2008 SC 663
15
(1995) 5 SCC 482: 1995 (1) Suppl. SCR 349
offences. Hence, it cannot be contended by the petitioner that the Act was unfair or
unreasonable in nature.