GLC Moot Memorial For Respondent

1
JUSTICE T.RAMACHANDRAN MEMORIAL EVER ROLLING TROPHY MOOT - 2019
TEAM CODE – N
GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE - THRISSUR, JUSTICE T.RAMACHANDRAN

MEMORIAL EVER ROLLING TROPHY MOOT - 2019
BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
W.P. No. _____/2018
DHORMIR DOST
(PETITIONER)
v.
UNION OF INDIA
(RESPONDENT)
UNDER ART. 32 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS

LORDSHIP’S COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME
COURT OF INDIA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
2
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………03
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………………………………....04
STATEMENT OF FACT…………………………………………………..…05
STATEMENT OF ISSUES……………………………………………….…..07
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………………..….08
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED………………………………………………….10
PRAYER………………………………………………………………………..22
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

3
 TABLE OF CASES
1. Ratan Lal Soni vs. The State Of Rajasthan And Ors , 1994 (1) WLC 679, 1993 WLN UC
194
2. Laxmi Raj Shetty v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra), AIR1988,SC1274
3. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras 1950 AIR 27, 1950 SCR 88
 DATABASES REFERRED
I. http://www.manupatra.com(last visited on 18 February 2019).
II. http://www.westlaw.org(last visited on18 February 2019).
III. http://www.indiankanoon.com(last visited on18 February 2019).
IV. http://www.lexisnexis.com (last visited on18 February 2019).
V. http://www.judis.nic.in (last visited on18 February 2019).
 OTHER AUTHORITIES
1. Constitution of india
2. Income-Tax Act, 1961.
3. Indian Evidence Act 1872.
4. Finance Act 2001
5. Finance Act 2002.
6. Finance Act 2009.
7. Information Technology Act 2000.
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

4
The Respondent is responding this Hon’ble Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution
of India As:
Article 32 in The Constitution of India 1950
32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the
enforcement of the
Rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed
STATEMENT OF FACTS

5
1. Dhormir is the capital city of Karmasthan which is a Union Territory in India,

directly under the control of Government of India.
2. On 3/1/2018 Mr. Sham Kiran assumed the charge of city commissioner of the
Police of Dhormir.
3. On night of May 12 a Drug Raid was carried out police officers at a pride party for
LGBTQ members which was organised by Dhormir Dost, a well-known NGO of
the city. The complete incident was reported by a news item published by DCN
newspaper.
4. The 120 odd members of the LGBTQ community were subjected to abuse, threats
and humiliation.
5. The police officers made the attendees of the party strip in groups that too in public
view. Furthermore perverted questions were asked by the officials and the attendees
were assaulted as the members reported incidents of grouping and illicit comments
passed on them. Their reputation was also threatened by the officials.
6. Once the search was concluded, the officials forcibly procured the personal
information such as names, numbers and addresses of all attendees and left the
spot at 4:00 a.m.
7. During the raid the vital legal information was not presented such as search warrant
and proper documentation regarding the authorization of the raid. Furthermore the
officials claimed to be from Narcotics Department whereas they were from local
police stations who had no Jurisdiction for conducting a drug raid.
8. On further inquiry by DCN, the Narcotics Control Bureau in Dhormir denied of any
raids conducted on the said date.

6
9. On 16/8/2018 Dhormir Dost filed a petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India seeking the compensation for the violation of the fundamental rights of the
victims of the incident which happened of May 12. The copy of DCN was also
attached.
10. On 26/12/2018 the Income Tax department conducted raid in the office of Dhormir
Dost and seized seven computers kept in the office.
11. On 3/1/2019 Dhormir Dost filed a petition challenging the validity of the actions of
Income Tax department.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES

7
1. Whether Honb’le Supreme is the proper forum for this case.

2. Whether The drug raid conducted by Mr. Sham Kiran was a violation of
fundamental rights of LGBTQ members under article 21 of indian
constitution
3. Whether The Drug Raid conducted was a violation of Right to equality under
article 14 of the Indian constitution
4. Whether The raid conducted by IT department is completely irrelevant to the
former petition and was conducted under their jurisdiction

8
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. Honb’le Supreme is not the proper forum for this case.
a. Here say nature of newspaper clip cannot be held admissible in court of law
b. The drug raid conducted by sham kiran and his fellow officers was under the ambit
of rule of law.
c. The petition regarding seizure of computers by IT Department in the former

Petition of Dhormir Dost.
2. The drug raid conducted by Mr. Sham Kiran was not a violation of
fundamental rights of LGBTQ members under article 21 of indian
constitution
a. That the right to live dignified life and personal liberty was not thwarted by the
police
b. Right to Privacy was not violated by Drug Raid conducted
3. The Drug Raid conducted was not a violation of Right to equality under article
14 of the Indian constitution.
The drug raid conducted was under the umbrella of rule of law and no particular
members of the society were targeted as if not the LGBTQ members other civilians
would also have gone through similar procedure as established by law.
4. The raid conducted by IT department is completely irrelevant to the former

petition and was conducted under their jurisdiction

9
The drug raid conducted was as per the powers and jurisdiction conferred to IT
department by legislation. It can therefore cannot be clubbed in with the former
petition by mere coincidence of IT department commissioner being brother of
Sham Kiran.

10
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. That Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is not the proper forum to file the
petitions placed forward by Dhormir Dost
The flimsy and malafide contentions and allegations framed by Dhormir Dost are
not credible enough to be placed as valid issues before the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India as they lack the girth of validity before such pristine forum due to
following reasons:-
1.1 Hearsay nature of newspaper clipping cannot be held admissible in court of
law.
The contentions and allegations are based on media coverage in form of newspaper
clipping by one DCN news. It is well evident and crystal clear that news items
cannot be held as sole basis and source of contentions in court of law.
In the case of Ratan Lal Soni vs. The State Of Rajasthan And Ors 1 it was quite
evidently held that Judicial notice cannot be taken of the facts stated in a news item
being in the nature of hearsay secondary evidence, unless proved
by evidence allude. A report in a newspaper is only hearsay evidence. Newspaper is
not one of the documents referred to in Section 78(2)2 of the Evidence Act by
which an allegation of fact can be proved. The presumption of genuineness attached
under Section 813 of the Evidence Act to a newspaper report cannot be treated as
proved of the facts reported therein. A statement of fact contained in a newspaper is
merely hearsay and therefore inadmissible in evidence in the absence of the maker
of the statement appearing in court and deposing to have perceived the fact
reported.
The allegations made in a writ petition whether it is PIL or other has got to be
based on such facts and sworn in such a manner that inspires confidence.
Section 81 of the Evidence Act deals with presumption about the genuineness of
documents narrated therein. Even if newspapers are admissible in evidence without
formal proof, the paper itself is not proof of his contents. It would merely amount to
1
1994 (1) WLC 679, 1993 WLN UC 194
2
Sec 78 (2) of Evidence Act
3
Sec 81 of Evidence Act

11
an anonymous statement and cannot be treated as proof of the facts stated in

the newspaper. The statement of a fact in a newspaper is merely hearsay and is
inadmissible in the absence of the marker of the statement deposing to have
perceived the fact reported.
Furthermore in the case of Laxmi Raj Shetty v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra)4, the
Supreme Court held that the newspaper is not admissible in evidence.
A newspaper is not one of the documents referred to in Section 78(2) of
the Evidence Act by which an allegation of fact can be proved.
Therefore it is quite evident that the Locus Standi of the writ petition filed by
Dhormir Dost is not maintainable before the court of law as it lacks proper grounds
for contentions due to the flimsy and hearsay nature of the newspaper report which
is used as the prime evidence for the allegations which are not admissible in court
of law.
1.2 The Drug raid conducted by Mr. Sham Kiran and his fellow police officers was
under the ambit of rule of Law.
The drug raid which took place was with the intention to curb the suspected drug
abuse which was informed to the Police team by a reliable source. The police was
to reach the concerned hotel well in time to avoid the disposition of the illicit item
hence the warrant was not required.
Police was not bound under the need of a search warrant to conduct a search as it is
quite clearly stated in section 165 of the CRPC5 that:-
1. Whenever an officer in charge of a police station or a police officer making an
investigation has a reasonable grounds to believe that anything necessary for the
purpose of an investigation into any offence which he is authorized to investigate
may be found in any place and that thing cannot in his opinion be obtained without
undue delay without a search, such officer may search for such thing in any place
within the limits of such station.
2. Police officer proceeding under sub section (1), shall if practicable, conduct the
search in person.
4
AIR1988,SC1274
5
Sec 165 of CrPc.

12
3. If police officer is unable to conduct the search in person and there is no other
person competent to make the search present at the time, he may, after recording in
writing his reasons for so doing, require any officer subordinate to make the search
and order him to search for such thing in such place.
Furthermore due to the paucity of time and huge crowd it was need of hour to
conduct the strip search in groups, furthermore the privacy and dignity was
observed as the search was done by the officers of the same sex. Hence there is no
such violation of fundamental rights as the actions of officers were reasonable and
falls under the curtail of rights under the rule of law which is an exception to the
rights demanded by the petitioner.
Henceforth the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India should not entertain the petition as
it is not credible enough for Locus Standi of the court.
1.3 The Petition regarding seizure of Computers by Income Tax Department is

not to be clubbed in with the former petition of Dhormir Dost.
The two petitions are completely irrelevant to one another, wherein the former
petition is regarding the violation of fundamental rights which is filed under article
32 of the Indian Constitution6, whereas the latter is regarding a lawful raid
conducted by the Income Tax Department. The Right to privacy is not an absolute
right and is only a legal right. It is not expressly identified as even a right and is
considered as one under the definition of article 21 7, as one the faculty a human
requires to enjoy his life to fullest. However there are reasonable restrictions to this
right. Interruption into protection of personal privacy might be by-
1) Legislative Provision
2) Administrative/Executive request
3) Judicial Orders.
The raid conducted by Income Tax Department is lawful because it falls under the
ambit of their legality and Legislative provision to seize computers as The
Information Technology Act, 2000 has been authorized perceiving electronic
records as proof, overseeing access to and obtaining of advanced and electronic
6
Article 32 of constitution of india.
7
Article 21 of constitution of india

13
proof from people, corporate bodies as well as from the general population space.
By method for this establishment, amendments were additionally incorporated in
different laws like Indian Penal Code, Indian Evidence Act and Criminal Procedure
Code, (Cr.PC). The Income-Tax Act, 19618 has likewise been corrected thrice by
method for Finance Act 20019, Finance Act 200210 and Finance Act 200911 along
these lines concurring acknowledgment to electronic proof, encouraging access to
them and giving when need be, forces to appropriate and seize them. By Finance
Act, 2001, Clause (22AA) was embedded in Section 2 12 to give that the expression
"archive" in Income Tax Act, 1961, incorporates an electronic record as
characterized in proviso (t) of sub-area (1) of segment 2 of the Information
Technology Act, 200013. By Finance Act, 2002, Clause (II B) was embedded in
Sub-Section (1) of Section 132 requiring any individual who is observed to be
under lock and key or control of any books of record or different reports kept up as
electronic record as characterized in statement (t) of sub-segment (1) of area 2 of
the Information Technology Act, 2000 , to manage the cost of the approved officer
the important office to investigate such books of record or different archives; and
by Finance Act, 2009, condition (c) was embedded in sub-segment (1) of Section
28214 giving that administration of notice as any electronic record as gave in
Chapter IV of the Information Technology Act, 2000 will establish substantial
administration.
Therefore the seizure of Computers is well in power of Income Tax Department and
cannot be considered violation of any fundamental right of the petitioner.
8
Income-Tax Act, 1961.
9
Finance Act 2001
10
Finance Act 2002.
11
Finance Act 2009.
12
Section 2 of evidence act.
13
sub-area (1) of segment 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000
14
Section 282 of evidence act

14
2. That the Drug Raid conducted by MR. Sham Kiran was not a violation of
fundamental rights of LGBTQ members under article 21 of the Indian
Constitution
The very definition and soul article 21 is fully encapsulated in the Article itself
which reads as:
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to
a procedure established by law.”
Here procedure established by law is a monumental phrase as it curbs the personal
liberty and life of individuals when their actions are against the rule of law of falls
under the ambit of restraints established by the virtue of procedure established by
law. In this case though the Right to Personal Liberty and Right to Life were
hampered, but the act of drug raid was under the ambit of procedure established by
law. Therefore the drug raid cannot be held as a violation of Article 21.
2.1 That the right to live a dignified life and personal liberty was not thwarted by
the police
The drug raid conducted by Mr. Sham Kiran and his fellow police officers was a
lawful raid as it had the intent to curb the drugs which were supposed to be held in
possession of the LGBTQ members. The information regarding the drug possession
was tipped off by a reliable source to the police. Under section 165 of CrPc the
police holds the power to conduct raid and searches without warrant if there is
reasonable apprehension of illicit activities for which immediate action is required.
Suspected Drug possession is one such ground wherein paucity of time is a grave
factor, henceforth police have the right to search without warrant
Furthermore the strip search done also falls under the legal jurisdiction of the police
officers as they can search for drugs and related illicit items by the means of strip
search. The search was performed while concerning the personal dignity of the
LGBTQ members by means of appointing gender specific officers for the search.
Due to the paucity of time the officials were compelled to perform the search in
groups.
The due process has derived its meaning from the word ‘the law of the land’ used in
the Section 39 of Magna Carta of 1215. Due process is the principle that the

15
government must respect all of the legal right that is owed to a person according to
the law. Due process holds the government subservient to the law of the land and
protects individuals from the excesses of state. Due process is either procedural or
substantive. Procedural due process determines whether governmental entity has
taken an individual’s life and liberty without the fair procedure required by the
statute.
The process of government, which deprives a person’s life and liberty, must comply
with the due process clause. However, the ‘due process’ is not a term with a clear
definition and the nature of the procedure clause depends on many factors.
In the said case the police officers were reasonable and were under the jurisdiction
of the Rule of law and due process. Fundamental rights are not absolute rights and
have certain reasonable restrictions on their part. These restrictions must be
considered valid if they are in the scope of legal procedure established by
Constitution of India.
In the case of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras 15 , it was held that preventive
detention was valid and under the due process of law, henceforth was not a
violation of fundamental rights of the petitioner.
Also the senior member of the Narcotics Department who claimed that there was no
raid authorized or reported to Narcotics Department is flimsy in nature as the
source didn't revealed his identity which shows that the source is of a suspicious
nature and the Court of law mustn't rely on such evidences and sources.
Therefore it is quite evident and clear that the raid conducted by MR. Sham Kiran
was a valid one, and was under the procedure established by law henceforth not
violation of Right to live a dignified life under Article 21.
2.2 Right to privacy was not violated by the Drug Raid conducted by Mr. Sham
Kiran and fellow officers
To begin with Right to privacy is not enumerated as a Fundamental Right in the
Constitution of India. The scope of this right first came up for consideration in
Kharak Singh’s Case which was concerned with the validity of certain regulations
that permitted surveillance of suspects. The minority decision of SUBBA RAO J.
deals with this light. In the context of Article 19(1) (d), the right to privacy was
15
1950 AIR 27, 1950 SCR 88

16
again considered by the Supreme Court in 1975. In a detailed decision, JEEVAN

REDDY J. held that the right to privacy is implicit under Article 21. This right is
the right to be let alone. In the context of surveillance, it has been held that
surveillance, if intrusive and seriously encroaches on the privacy of citizen, can
infringe the freedom of movement, guaranteed by Articles 19(1)(d) 16 and 21.
Surveillance must be to prevent crime and on the basis of material provided in the
history sheet. In the context of an anti-terrorism enactment, it was held that the right
to privacy was subservient to the security of the State and withholding information
relevant for the detention of crime can’t be nullified on the grounds of right to
privacy. The right to privacy in terms of Article 21 has been discussed in various
cases.
It can be easily established that even though Right to privacy is an essential
component of right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. Right of privacy
may, apart from contract, also arise out of a particular specific relationship, which
may be commercial, matrimonial or even political. Right to privacy is not an
absolute right; it is subject to reasonable restrictions for prevention of crime,
disorder or protection of health or morals or protection of rights and freedom of
others. Where there is a conflict between two derived rights, the right which
advances public morality and public interest prevails.
The permissible restrictions on Right to privacy also exist in the ambit of legal
procedure established by law. Intrusion into privacy may be by-
1 Legislative Provision
2 Administrative/Executive order
3 Judicial Orders.
Legislative intrusion must be tested on the touchstone of reasonableness as
guaranteed by the Constitution and for that purpose the Court can go into
proportionality of the intrusion vis-à-vis the purpose sought to be achieved.
So far as administrative or executive action is concerned it has to be reasonable
having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.
As to judicial warrants, the Court must have sufficient reason to believe that the
search or seizure is warranted and it must keep in mind the extent of search or
seizure necessary for protection of the particular State interest. In addition, as stated
16
Articles 19(1)(d) of indian constitution.

17
earlier, common law did recognise rare exceptions for conduct of warrantless
searches could be conducted but these had to be in good faith, intended to preserve
evidence or intended to prevent sudden anger to person or property.
The general law providing for the state’s power of search and seizure of evidence is
found in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Section 93 provides for the general procedure of search. Section 93 allows for a
magistrate to issue a warrant for the search of any “document or thing”, including a
warrant for general search of an area, where it believes it is required for the purpose
of investigation. The particularity of the search warrant is not a requirement under
S. 93(2), and hence a warrant may be for general or roving search of a place.
Section 100, which further provides for the search of a closed place, includes
certain safeguards such as the presence of witnesses and the requirement of a
warrant before a police officer may be allowed ingress into the closed place.
However, under S. 165 and S. 51 of the code, the requirements of a search warrant
are exempted.
S. 165 dispenses with the warrant requirement and provides for an officer in
charge of a police station, or any other officer duly authorized by him, to conduct
the search of any place as long as he has reasonable grounds to believe that such
search would be for the purpose of an investigation and a belief that a search
warrant cannot be obtained without undue delay. Further, the officer conducting
such search must as far as possible note down the reasons for such belief in writing
prior to conducting the search. Section 51 provides another express exception to the
requirement of search warrants, by allowing the search of a person arrested lawfully
provided that the arrested person may not or cannot be admitted to bail, and
requires any such seized items to be written in a search memo. As long as these
conditions are fulfilled, the police has an unqualified authority to search a person
upon arrest. Therefore, where the arrestee can be admitted to bail as per the
warrant, or, in cases of warrantless arrest, as per the law, the search and seizure of
such person may not be regular, and the evidence so collected would be subject to
greater scrutiny by the court. However, besides these minimal protections, there is
no additional procedural protection of individual privacy, and the search powers of
the police are extremely wide and discretionary.

18
Therefore in the case of petition filed by Dhormir Dost, the right to privacy is not
expressly violated. The strip search and inconvenience caused to LGBTQ members
was under the ambit of procedure established by Law. The suspicion of Drug
possession is quite evidently an important issue and procurement of warrant is not
required in situations wherein unnecessary delay can tamper the situation and
subject matter of the raid. Therefore the Police was well justified to carry out the
Drug Raid on the strong suspicion of Drug possession by the members attending
the party as they were tipped off by a reliable source of theirs. Furthermore the strip
search was performed in secured area respecting the privacy of the civilians in
groups of 5 due to the paucity of time. Also lady officers were assigned for the
search of the transgender women. Henceforth the drug raid is not a violation of
right to privacy or right to life under article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

19
3. The Drug Raid conducted by Mr. Sham Kiran was not violative of Right to
equality under article 14.
Article 14 of the Constitution of India reads as under:
“The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal
protection of the laws within the territory of India.”
Right to equality suggests that the state shall treat all its citizens as equals and
should provide them an equal social status with regard to day to day life.
Furthermore the state shall not discriminate against any of the citizens of India on
the basis of caste, creed, sex, gender, etc.
Furthermore in the case of petition filed by Dhormir Dost ,the allegation on MR.
Sham Kiran violating Right to equality is baseless and arbitrary. This can be
established due to certain reasons which are:-
1. The target of the raid was to curb the suspected Drug possession rather than
berating the members of LGBTQ community. The strip search and Drug raid was
not aimed at the LGBTQ members because of their genders rather it was based on
the motive to curb the Drugs. The same and identical procedure would have been
followed even if the subject matter were not LGBTQ members.
2. Furthermore it is notable that the Drug Raid conducted by MR. Sham Kiran and his
fellow police officers was under the ambit and defence of Procedure established by
law. Henceforth the contentions framed by Dhormir dost are baseless due to the fact
that the Police were executing the raid in a lawful and justified manner rather than
treating the members of the LGBTQ members in an unlawful and abusive manner
As contended by Dhormir Dost .
3. Lastly the Police officers have the right to seize the illegal and illicit containments
from individuals. Sometimes the rights of certain people are below the obligation of
public morale and welfare. Therefore certain rights can be ignored when the public
welfare is at risk. Herein drugs can be classified as one such ground.

20
4. The raid conducted by the Income Tax Department is completely irrelevant to

the former petition and was conducted under their jurisdiction
The former petition was filed under article 32 of the Indian Constitution which
supposedly violated the fundamental rights of the LGBTQ members, However the
petition which is being clubbed in lately is regarding a raid conducted by Income
Tax Department under their lawful jurisdiction and seized Computers containing
certain vital information in reference to the subject matter of the raid conducted by
the Income Tax Department.
One of the most significant and influential inventions of 20th century was the
Computer. There has been a sea change in the purposes and the manner in which
computers are used with advent of microprocessor technology and digital
communication. The computer started with being a giant calculating machine. It
then metamorphosed itself into a standalone personal tool for performing assorted
routine tasks like word processing and accounting and then to today’s network
device permeating virtually everything including instantaneous and global personal
and business interaction. The way business is conducted and records are maintained
today is a far cry from days past. Accordingly, in enforcement agencies including
the Income tax department, more and more information is being stored, transmitted
or processed in digital form.
The law of the country has also taken cognizance of this reality. The Information
Technology Act, 2000 has been enacted recognising electronic records as evidence,
governing access to and acquisition of digital and electronic evidence from
individuals, corporate bodies and/ or from the public domain. By way of this
enactment, amendments were also brought in other laws like Indian Penal Code,
Indian Evidence Act and Criminal Procedure Code, (Cr.PC). The Income-tax Act,
1961 has also been amended thrice by way of Finance Act 2001, Finance Act 2002
and Finance Act 2009 thereby according recognition to electronic evidence,
facilitating access to them and giving when need be, powers to impound and seize

21
them. By Finance Act, 2001, Clause (22AA) was inserted in Section 2 to provide
that the term “document” in Income Tax Act, 1961, includes an electronic record as
defined in clause (t) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Information Technology
Act, 2000. By Finance Act, 2002, Clause (II B) was inserted in Sub-Section (1) of
Section 132 requiring any person who is found to be in possession or control of any
books of account or other documents maintained in the form of electronic record as
defined in clause (t) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Information Technology
Act, 200017, to afford the authorised officer the necessary facility to inspect such
books of account or other documents; and by Finance Act, 2009, clause (c) was
inserted in sub-section (1) of Section 282 providing that service of notice in the
form of any electronic record as provided in Chapter IV of the Information
Technology Act, 200018 will constitute valid service.
Therefore it is quite evident that Income Tax Department can seize information
containing Computers during raids and it falls under their lawful ambit. The mere
coincidence that the commissioner of IT Department is brother of Mr Sham Kiran
is being used by petitioner which is quite vague and ambiguous. Henceforth the
petition fails to ascertain the Locus Standi of The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
17
21 of Information Technology Act 2000
18
21 of Information Technology Act 2000

22
PRAYER
Wherefore, in the light of the legal precedents and principles cited; and in light of the
provisions of the Constitution applied and arguments advanced; it is most humbly
pleaded before the Hon’ble Court that this Court adjudges and declare that:
 That the Hon'ble Supereme Court of India is not the ideal forum to put forth the
combined petitions as the former petition is based on heresay evidence of newspaper
item which cannot withhold admissibility in the court of law and secondly the IT
Department Raid falls in the ambit of rule of law.
 The officers led by Mr. Sham Kiran and himself shall not be punished by the law as
they were trying to curb the menace of drug abuse which was tipped off to them by a
reliable source. Therefore their actions were lawful in nature and were in favour of
social welfare.
 Furthermore Mr. Sham Kiran must be provided with reparations and compensation
for the ordeal and defamation he suffered through, while dispensing off his lawful
duties by the raid conducted.
 The Computers seized by the Income Tax Department shall not be returned to
Dhormir Dost as the raid conducted was of legal nature and not a violation of
fundamental rights of Dhormir Dost as the raid falls under the ambit of rule
established by law
And pass any other order, direction, or relief that it may deem fit in the best interests
of justice, fairness, equity and good conscience.
ALL OF WHICH IS MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

23
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

GLC Moot Memorial For Respondent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GLC Moot Memorial For Respondent

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

GLC Moot Memorial For Respondent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

JUSTICE T.RAMACHANDRAN MEMORIAL EVER ROLLING TROPHY MOOT - 2019

GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE - THRISSUR, JUSTICE T.RAMACHANDRAN

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

W.P. No. _____/2018

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1. Dhormir is the capital city of Karmasthan which is a Union Territory in India,

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1. Whether Honb’le Supreme is the proper forum for this case.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1. Honb’le Supreme is not the proper forum for this case.

c. The petition regarding seizure of computers by IT Department in the former

b. Right to Privacy was not violated by Drug Raid conducted

4. The raid conducted by IT department is completely irrelevant to the former

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

an anonymous statement and cannot be treated as proof of the facts stated in

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1.3 The Petition regarding seizure of Computers by Income Tax Department is

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

again considered by the Supreme Court in 1975. In a detailed decision, JEEVAN

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

4. The raid conducted by the Income Tax Department is completely irrelevant to

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

ALL OF WHICH IS MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.