INTRA-MURALS MOOT PROPOSITION

TEAM CODE: T059

SVKM’s NMIMS
KIRIT P. MEHTA SCHOOL OF LAW
INTRA-MURALS MOOT PROPOSITION

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF WESTEROS

UNDER SECTION 32 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION

WRIT PETITION NO.__/2019

In the matter of

Mr. Roose Bolton……………………………………………..…………PETITIONER

Versus

Union of Westeros…………………………...…………………........... RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

INTRA-MURALS MOOT PROPOSITION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………..………..…………...….3-4

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.........................................................................................…...5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………..……………………...……..6

STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………………………...……7-8

STATEMENT OF ISSUES…………………………………………………………………9

SUMMARYOF ARGUMENTS………………………………………...........…………..10

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED……………………………………………………………11-25

PRAYER……………………………………………………………………………….........26
INTRA-MURALS MOOT PROPOSITION

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES

Constitution of Indiana in pari materia with the Constitution of India 1

INDIAN CASES

1. Rabindra v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 470...........................................................12

2. Achutan v. State of Kerala, AIR 1959 SC 490 (492)..................................................12
3. Chiranjit lal v. Union of India, (1950) SCR 869……………………………..……..12
4. Deepchand v. State of U.P., AIR 1959 SC 648..........................................................12
5. Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 1295.................................................12,14
6. Kochunni v State of Madras, AIR 1959 SC 725.........................................................12
7. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Admn.(1), AIR 1978 SC 1675...................................................14
8. Gopal Das vs. UOI, (1955) 1 SCR 773.......................................................................14
9. Himmatlal v. State of M.P., (1954) SCR 1122............................................................14
10. Chintamanrao v. State of Bihar, AIR 1951 SC 118....................................................15
11. Justice K. S. Puttaswamy vs. UOI, Writ Petition (Civil) No 494 Of 2012.................16
12. State of UP vs Babu and Otrs, 2007(9) ADJ, 107 (DB)..............................................17
13. State vs. Ashok Kumar, SC No. 112/13 2013.............................................................18
14. Maneka Gandhi v. UOI, 1978 AIR 597..................................................................18,22
15. Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India, 1984 AIR 802........................................19
16. D. F. Marion vs. Minnie Davis, 55 American LR 171.................................................20
17. Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee AIR 1989 SCC 155......................20
18. Faridabad Singh v, New Delhi Municipal Committee, AIR 1996 SC 1175................22
19. Indira Sawhney II v.UOI, (2000) 1 S.C.C. 168........................................................22
20. Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. Vs. UOI, 1990 AIR 1277............................................23
21. Arvinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1979 SC 321..............................................23
22. Sivani v. State of Maharshtra AIR 1995 SC 1770......................................................23
23. Mohd.Shujat Ali v. UOI, AIR 1974 SC 1631.............................................................24
24. Kangshari v. State of W.B., 1960 SC 457(484)..........................................................24
25. KedarNath v. State of West.Bengal. AIR 1953 SC 404..............................................24
INTRA-MURALS MOOT PROPOSITION

26. Ram Sarup v. Union of India, AIR 1965 SC 247(252)...............................................24

27. Laxmi Khandsari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1981 SC 873.........................................24
28. Budhan v. State of Bihar, AIR 1970 SC 1453.........................................................24

BOOKS & ARTICLES

1. Moushumi Das Gupta, Govt. to start Database of sex offenders, HT, April 22,
2018............................18
2. Press Information Bureau, Cyber Crime Prevention against Women and Children
(CCPWC) portal to check objectionable online content; National Database on Sexual
Offenders (NDSO) to aid in monitoring & investigation of sexual crimes, Government
of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, 20th July 2019, (20th Sept, 2018, 10:04 A.M.),
http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=183597...........................................19
3. V.N Shukla , Constitution Of India, pg. 172-173 (12th ed., Eastern Book Company,
2013)....................21
4. Arvind P Datar, Commentary on the Constitution of India, (2nd ed Wadhwa Nagpur,
2007).................23
5. M.P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law Of India, 1132-1134 (6th ed., Lexis Nexis
Butterworths 2010)...................................23
6. 2 RAMANATHA AIYER, ADVANCE LAW MEXICAN, 2391, (3rd Ed.,
2005)..............................................24
7. 2 ACHARYA DR. DURGA DAS BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,
1396 (8th Ed., LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur,
2007.....................................................................................24

OTHER AUTHORITIES

1. POCSO Act............................................................................................................17
2. IPC..............................................................................................................................18
3. PRS Legislative Research, Draft Personal Data Protection Bill, 2018........................19
4. Indian Contracts Act, 1872..............................................................................19
INTRA-MURALS MOOT PROPOSITION

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

IPC Indian Penal Code

Art. Article
UIDAI Unique Identification Authority of India
UOI Union of India
Otrs. Others
Para Paragraph
Vs./V. Versus
POCSO Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
NDSO National Database on Sexual Offenders
DNA Deoxyribonucleic Acid
PAN Permanent Account Number
HT Hindustan Times
SC Supreme Court
AIR All India Radio
ADJ Additional District Judge
No. Number
NDF Non-Disclosure form
Hon’ble Honorable
i.e. That is
L.R. Law Report
SCC Supreme Court Case
Pg. Page
J. Judge
Const. Constitution
Co. Company

Ltd. Limited
Adm. Administration
INTRA-MURALS MOOT PROPOSITION

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner humbly submits before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, that this memorandum of
the present writ lies under Article 32 of the Constitution of Indian. The Petitioner submits this
memorial which sets forth the facts & the laws on which the claims are based. All the parties
shall accept any judgment of the court as final and binding upon them and shall execute it, in
its entirety and in good faith.

Art. 32: Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part1-

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

(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs
in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari,
whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part

(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 ) and ( 2 ),
Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its
jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause ( 2 )

(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided
for by this Constitution

11
INDIAN CONST. Art 32.
INTRA-MURALS MOOT PROPOSITION

STATEMENT OF FACTS

HISTORY

Panthea was a continent wherein a region known as Atlantis was located. Atlantis was the
oldest home to the human civilization and has rich resources and biodiversity, and therefore
had been subjected to many military campaigns. After the rule of the Valyrians for nearly 200
years, a violent civil war broke out that led to the ouster of monarchy and creation of two
independent nations, Westeros and Essos. The Democratic Republic of Westeros adopted a
written, federal Constitution pari materia with the Constitution of India in the year 1951.
Having a diverse culture wherein each state has its own distinct socio-cultural characteristics,
90% of the population follow “Faith of the First Men” (FOFM), 8% pray to “R’hollor” the
Lord of Light and 2% follow other minor religions. The Constitution of Westeros mandates
constitutional supremacy over parliamentary supremacy.

BACKGROUND

Ms. Sansa Stark, a 14-year-old minor, was reported missing from her residence and her body
was found after 2 days of a manhunt, in a field, 15 kms away from her residence. Further
investigation confirmed that she had been brutally beaten, molested, raped, sodomised before
being murdered. Mr. Ramsay Bolton was arrested within 10 days in connection with the rape
and murder of Ms. Sansa Stark.

“The Raven”, a daily newspaper that had wide circulation across Westeros, reported that Mr.
Ramsay Bolton had been convicted of sexually molesting a minor in the past and had served
five years sentence in prison. Due to its wide circulation and other media houses, there was a
major public outrage. Various public outrages demanded for stringent action against sexual
offenders. Further, the Raven also published a report stating about 65% of the convicted sex
offenders were followers of “R’hollor”.

ISSUE

Considering the protests, the Government introduced a public notification statute by way of
an ordinance named “Sexual Offenders Disclosure Act 2018”, also commonly known as
Sansa’s Law, having retrospective effect. Sansa’s Law enabled the parents or guardians of
children below the age of 18 to file a written application to ask the law enforcement
authorities for information regarding any person residing within their locality, having contact
with the concerned child, who could be threat to him due to the past record of conviction of
INTRA-MURALS MOOT PROPOSITION

sexual crime. If such a risk is detected, the same may be reported to a person best placed to
protect the child and same may not be reported to the applicant in appropriate cases. A non-
disclosure form is to be signed to protect such information to be leaked to any third party.

A three-tiered ranking system against convicts of sexual offences against minors was enacted
that ranked the convicts on the basis of the gravity of the offence for which the person is
convicted, the likelihood of him to commit the offence again by a Reviewing Committee
comprising of retired judge of a High Court, a psychiatrist specializing in sexual crimes and a
police officer ranking not less than the position of Commissioner of Police. The personal
information of the convicts, classified as registered for 15 years for low danger convict, 25
years for moderate danger and for lifetime for habitual/ violent offenders, including names,
past and present addresses, photographs, fingerprints, DNA samples and PAN and Aadhar
numbers is to be registered by the convict before being released on completion of his
sentence. The authorities are to be alerted regarding any change in the name or address of the
convict within 7 days from such change. The retrospective application mandates all sexual
offenders of minors to register to the local police within 7 days from the date of the law
coming into force. The authorities are empowered to visit the residence and workplace of the
convict at any time of the day, without any prior notice.

Mr. Roose Bolton was a convict under “Prevention of Sexual Offences against Children Act,
2013” and had served a sentence for 3 years for child pornography and currently working as
janitor at the local hospital. After the passage of Sansa’s Law, Mr. Roose Bolton registered
with the local police station within the stipulated period. A while after, he felt that he was
being ostracized by the management and other staff members of the hospital and was
thereafter fired on the grounds of non-performance. After the termination, he was brutally
beaten up by, who were then suspected to be his former colleagues, which was a treatment of
the result of registration under Sansa’s Law.

PROCEEDINGS

The constitutional validity of Sansa’s Law was challenged in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
Westeros under Article 32 by Mr. Bolton. A notice was issued to the Union of Westeros after
admitting the matter by the Supreme Court. Having completed all pleadings, the matter is
listed for final hearing.
INTRA-MURALS MOOT PROPOSITION

ISSUED RAISED

ISSUE 1:

WHETHER THE MATTER FILED UNDER ART. 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

INDIA IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

ISSUE 2:

WHETHER THE LAW MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA IS VIOLATIVE

OF ART. 19 & 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA?

ISSUE 3:

WHETHER THE LAW MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA IS VIOLATIVE

OF ART. 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA?
INTRA-MURALS MOOT PROPOSITION

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
.

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE MATTER FILED UNDER ART. 32 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

The FRs of the convicts are violated as their Right to Privacy under Art 21, Right to Equality
under Art 14 and Freedom of practising any profession under Art 19 is being exploited
through the Sansa’s Law. The said law enacting is arbitrary as does not provide any remedy
to a violation caused by leaking of personal information registered by the convicts. Art 32
may be invoked when the FR of a person are in violation due to the unconstitutionality
caused by a law and therefore, in the present case, Art 32 is maintainable.

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE LAW MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA IS

VIOLATIVE OF ART. 19 & 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA?

The Sansa’s Law is in violation of Art 19(1)(g) as well as Art 21 which in elaboration
discusses that all citizens have the right to practice any profession or to carry on any
occupation, trade or business and one of the facets of protection of life and personal liberty is
the Right to Privacy. Both of these rights are exploited under Sansa’s Law. The effect of the
law on the reputation of the convicts and the exploitation of his privacy clearly states that the
law enacted is unconstitutional.

ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE LAW MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA IS

VIOLATIVE OF ART. 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA?

The Sansa’s Law is in violation of Art 14 as the direct result of its enactment caused Mr.
Roose Bolton to be fired from his workplace and beaten up by his former colleagues. The law
treated the convicts who served their sentence fairly open for judgment. On an application by
the guardian or parent of a minor, the personal information of the convicts could be opened
for inspection which is a violation of his privacy. This unequal treatment that is caused by the
law is unconstitutional.
INTRA-MURALS MOOT PROPOSITION

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1: THAT THE PETITION FILED BY MR. ROOSE BOLTON IS

MAINTAINABLE

1. The matter filed under Art 32 of the constitution2 is maintainable as it violates the
Fundamental rights of the petitioner. The Supreme Court has original3, appellate4 and
advisory5 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 in so far 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 326 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 corpus 7 ,
mandamus8, prohibition9, quo warranto10 and certiorari11 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 another State High Court or from a Court
subordinate to another State High Court. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble
Court that the question of maintainability of a petition for the enforcement of
fundamental rights guaranteed under part III, can only arise in case of delay in filing

2
Constitution of Westeros, Pari material to Constitution of India (Herein after referred as Constitution).
3
Power to hear cases for the first time.
4
Overrule decisions of trial court
5
Seek opinion on question of law
6
Supra note 1.
7
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.
8
A judicial writ issued as a command to an inferior court or ordering a person to perform a public or statutory
duty.
9
The action of forbidding something, especially by law.
10
A writ or legal action requiring a person to show by what warrant an office or franchise is held, claimed, or
exercised.
11
A writ or order by which a higher court reviews a case tried in a lower court.
"An order of certiorari"
INTRA-MURALS MOOT PROPOSITION

the petition12, or where the right infringed is personal right of contract between private
parties13, or where there has been no violation of the fundamental rights of the party14.
In the present case, the petition has been filed without delay, there was no private
contract, and the fundamental rights of the petitioner have been violated. Therefore,
fulfilling all the conditions required for a petition to be maintainable in the Court.
3. In addition to that, Article 1315 talks about how the constitutionality of a law can be
challenged. It says that once the Supreme Court is prima facie satisfied that the rights
of the petitioner before it are or are likely to be infringed by the State action, then it
becomes the duty of the Supreme Court to interfere, because the right to move the
Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights is itself a fundamental right and
has been guaranteed by the Constitution and the Court cannot, accordingly throw out
a petition on grounds that the proper writ has not been prayed for or that there is
another alternative remedy open to the petitioner.16
4. Therefore, it can prima facie be established that the petitioner’s right to equality under
article 14, right to freedom under article 19, and the right to life under article 21, have
been violated by the impugned Sansa’s Law because under the Act, the State made it
mandatory for the sexual offenders to register with the police authorities, where the
police were to keep record of the personal details such as their AADHAR, PAN, place
of residence. All such details could be used by the authorities against the convicts
whenever needed, and were allowed to visit the place of residence of the convict at
any point of time. Hence, there is a clear violation of the fundamental rights of the
petitioner.
5. In the case of Kochunni v state of madras17, the petitions were raised before the court
stating that the impugned act is constitutionally void because it violates the
fundamental rights of the petitioners. It stated- “A person whose rights are directly
infringed by the law can raise the question of its constitutionality.” If that person is
outside the purview of that law, such that his fundamental rights are not getting

12
Rabindra v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 470
13
Achutan v. State of Kerala, AIR 1959 SC 490 (492)
14
Chiranjit lal v. Union of India, (1950) SCR 869
15
INDIAN CONST., art 13.
16
Deepchand v. State of U.P., AIR 1959 SC 648; Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 1295
17
Kochunni v state of madras ,AIR 1959 SC 725 (731); Chiranjit Lal v. Union of India, (1950) SCR 809
INTRA-MURALS MOOT PROPOSITION

violated, then he has no right to complain.18 In the present case, Sansa’s law required
the sexual offenders to register themselves at the police authorities. The registrations
were to be kept confidential with the authorities and could only be disclosed to the
person best placed to protect the child and may not be reported to the applicant.
However, the information about Mr. Roose Bolton’s registration was revealed to the
management and staff of the hospital where he worked as a janitor. The aftermath of
this revelation led the hospital authorities into ostracizing him and then eventually
firing him from his job, therefore treating him unequally with the others, and violating
his fundamental right to equality guaranteed under article 1419 of the Constitution of
India.
6. It is submitted before the court that the State by enacting Sansa’s law has led to the
violation of the fundamental right to profession of the petitioner, guaranteed under
article 19(1)(g)20 of Part III. The petitioner who worked as a janitor at a local hospital
had been fired from his job, as a consequence of the passage of Sansa’s law. The State
cannot act arbitrarily upon their whims and fancies. In the present case, there was
arbitrary disclosure of personal information of the petitioner, by the police authorities
to the hospital management. This revealed that the petitioner had been a convict in the
past, thereby firing him from his job.
7. The right to life and liberty guaranteed under article 21 of the constitution also
encompasses the right to privacy within its ambit. The petitioner in this case was
registered as a sexual offender on the condition that his information would be kept
confidential with the authorities, and would only be disclosed to a third person if there
was an apprehension of him committing a sexual offence. This law also allowed the
authorities to visit the workplace and the residence of the convict, at any time of the
day and without any prior notice. Therefore, the law is in clear violation of the right to
privacy of the petitioner as under article 21, he has a right to live consistently with
human dignity and decency but in the given case, the police authorities have been
given extensive power to invade the petitioner’s privacy anywhere and at any point of
time.

19
Article 14 of the constitution of India (in pari material with the constitution of Westeros)-The State shall not
deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.
20
Infra note 50.
INTRA-MURALS MOOT PROPOSITION

8. Under Art 21, “the right to live means something more than ‘mere animal
existence’ and includes the right to live consistently with human dignity and
decency.”21 The law curtailed the right to liberty, the right to live with human dignity,
and the right to privacy of the petitioner simultaneously.
9. It is submitted in the Hon’ble court that in the case of Gopal Das v. Union of India,22
the relief sought after by the petitioner in not a relief claimed against any private
party. It is because of the inadequacy in the implementation of Sansa’s law which was
passed by the government which has led the petitioner to approach the court. There
has been a lack of implementation in the enforcement of the law as the information
about the registration of the petitioner under the Sexual Offenders Disclosure Act,
2018, was leaked to the hospital management and staff, wherein it was meant to be
kept confidential. This proves the ineffectiveness of the law that although in force,
fails to guarantee protection of the fundamental rights under article 21 of the
petitioner and also, it does not prescribe any measures to be taken in case of its
violation.
10. Hence, the petitioner was aggrieved by the law enacted by the government, which
itself falls under the category of a State and therefore, the petitioner is allowed to
approach the Court. “An application under article 32 cannot be thrown out merely
because there is some adequate alternative remedy available to the petitioner.”23
Since, the Supreme Court is constituted to be the protector and guarantor of
fundamental rights, and the right to move to the Supreme Court in case of violation of
fundamental rights is in itself a fundamental right. Therefore, the SC is obligated to
grant relief under art 32, where its violation can be prima facie established.24
11. It is contended before the Hon’ble court that the Sexual Offenders Disclosure Act,
2018, passed by the Government was given a retrospective application by the law.
The principle of “lex prospicit non respicit” (non retrospective law) prohibits the law
making power of the constitution and says that laws cannot be enacted with a
retrospective application. In the instant case, it is clearly mentioned that Sansa’s Law
was introduced with a retrospective application. The convicts, who have committed a
sexual offence in the past and have already served their jail term, were now being
21
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Admn.(1), AIR 1978 SC 1675
22
Gopal Das vs. UOI, (1955) 1 SCR 773
23
Himmatlal v. State of M.P., (1954) SCR 1122; Kharak Singh v. State of M.P., AIR 1963 SC 1295
24
Kochunni v. State of Madras, AIR 1959 SC 725 (729)
INTRA-MURALS MOOT PROPOSITION

called upon by the authorities to register themselves at the police station. Therefore,
Sansa’s law is in violation of Article 20(1)25 of the Constitution.
12. It is further contended that art 32 also says “the writ of mandamus can be issued to
prevent the enforcement of a statute, effecting the petitioner, which offends against
his fundamental rights.”26 Issuing of the writ of Mandamus is of extensive remedial
nature, and is in the form of a command issuing from a higher court to any person or
inferior tribunal, requiring him or them to do some particular thing therein specified
which appertains to his or their office and is in nature of a public duty. It is used for
enforcement of various rights of the public or to compel the public statutory
authorities to discharge their duties and to act within the bounds. It may be used to do
justice when there is wrongful exercise of power or a refusal to perform duties.
13. In the present case, the duties of the police authorities fall under public duty of the
State. The law guaranteed confidentiality of the petitioner’s personal information, but
in the case there has been misuse of the power given to police authorities. Public
duties should be carried out in the procedure as prescribed by the law. An omission to
performance also shall also lead to violation of a public duty. Hence, in the case
before this Court, the police authorities had a duty to keep the information of the
registered offenders confidential, which they had failed to perform. This can clearly
be inferred from the atrocities the petitioner had to face soon after his registration
under the Act, when the management and staff started ostracizing him and then
eventually fired him from the job.
14. Therefore, the Sansa Law is in violation of FRs of the convicts and therefore
maintainable under Art. 32.

25
INDIAN CONST., art 20(1).
26
Chintamanrao v. State of Bihar, AIR 1951 SC 118
INTRA-MURALS MOOT PROPOSITION

ISSUE 2: THAT THE SANSA LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VIOLATES

ART 21 AND ART 19 OF THE CONSTITUTION.

15. It is humbly submitted in the Hon’ble Court that the Petitioner’s Fundamental Right
to Privacy, protected by Article 2127 of the Constitution,28 is violated by the said Law
of “Sexual Offenders Disclosure Act, 2018”.29

2.1 THAT THE SANSA LAW VIOLATES ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION.

16. It is humbly submitted before the Court that by making the registry of database, the
Government is permitting access to the information of previous convicts, on
application by the concerned party, which infringes the Right to Privacy that is
protected by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution of the accused. As the Law30
mentions that on an application by a parent or guardian of the minor child, the
personal information of the alleged person’s life is open for judgment which may
manipulate the situation. The Law permits mere contact with the concerned child to
be used to access information which may further be used to frame the accused.
17. Further, it is contended that in the landmark judgment of Justice K. S. Puttaswamy vs.
Union of India31, issue had been raised on whether the Right to Privacy is protected
by the Indian Constitution which was further be a facet of Right to Life and Liberty,
as under Art. 21 of the Indian Constitution which protects the privacy of every
individual citizen. The Court held that: “Nevertheless, these extracts would show that
an unauthorised intrusion into a person's home and the disturbance caused to him
thereby, is as it were the violation of a common law right of a man an ultimate
essential of ordered liberty, if not of the very concept of civilisation…” Mere contact
with the concerned child, as mentioned in Sansa’s Law, cannot be considered to be a
ground to invade the privacy or alleging a person to have committed a crime as
alleged in his past. The data registered under the UIDAI for Adhaar card cannot be
used for criminal investigations unless the Court has passed such an order32 and

27
INDIAN CONST. art 21.
28
Constitution of Westeros, Pari Materia to the Constitution of India (herein after referred to as Constitution).
29
Sexual Offenders Disclosure Act 2018, commonly known as the Sansa Law (herein referred to as Sansa’s
Law).
30
As mentioned in para 9 of the Moot Proposition.
31
Justice K. S. Puttaswamy vs. UOI, Writ Petition (Civil) No 494 Of 2012.
32
Ibid.
INTRA-MURALS MOOT PROPOSITION

therefore, providing the government to order such an investigation due to mere doubt
of a risk to the concerned child due to the contact of the accused with him is not
permissible.
18. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that section 354D of the Indian
Penal Code defines Stalking as: Any man who (i) follows a woman and contacts, or
attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a
clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or (ii) monitors the use by a woman
of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication, commits the
offence of stalking.33 In the law stated above, stalking has been defined as to when it
shall become a criminal liability. This distinction is an important part of how a Law
should be made and enacted as our Constitution abides by the principle of “let a
hundred culprits free but no one innocent should be convicted.”
19. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Babu and Otrs34 it has been observed that:
“The golden thread of proof beyond reasonable doubt should not be stretched
morbidly to embrace every hunch, hesitancy and degree of doubt. The excessive
solicitude reflected in the attitude that a thousand guilty men may go but one
innocent martyr shall not suffer is a false dilemma. Only reasonable doubts belong
to the accused. Otherwise any practical system of justice will then breaks down and
lose credibility with the community. The evil of acquitting a guilty person light-
heartedly goes much beyond the simple fact that just one guilty person has gone
unpunished. If unmerited acquittals become general, they tend to lead to a cynical
disregard of the law, and this in turn leads to a public demand for harsher legal
presumption against indicted persons and more severe punishment of those who are
found guilty. Too frequent acquittals of the guilty may lead to a ferocious penal
law, eventually eroding the judicial protection of the guiltless. Miscarriage of
justice may arise from the acquittal of the guilty no less than from the conviction of
innocent.”35
20. With this principle explicitly mentioned, the provision under Sansa’s Law,36 of
approaching the authorities by the parents or guardian due to mere contact of the
accused with the child is unsatisfactory. This has no grounds of accountability as no
criminal intentions can be observed through mere contact of a person with a child. In
33
Section 354D of the IPC.
34
State of UP vs Babu and Otrs, 2007(9) ADJ, 107 (DB).
35
Ibid.
36
As mentioned in para 9 of the Moot Proposition.
INTRA-MURALS MOOT PROPOSITION

the facts of the case of State vs. Ashok Kumar37, a young girl studying in 7th grade
who hired a rickshaw to go to school. The accused was the rickshaw puller who was
alleged to see the victim with bad intentions and followed her for next 4-5 days. On
April 23, 2013, the accused followed the victim to her school and abused her in filthy
language. At this, the victim complained to her parents who further filed a complaint
with the police. The accused was convicted under section 354D38 of IPC read with
section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act39.
21. The Sansa’s Law is ambiguously drafted making it unconstitutional on various
grounds, as classified further. In the light of the case of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of
India40 in the year 1978, Article 21 has been given a wider spectrum to its
interpretation without the legislature or judiciary using any arbitrary powers or
unreasonableness.
22. The Law remains uncertain of the authority to which the criminal record of the
accused, which could be a risk to the child, is.41 The Sansa Law clearly states that
such information shall be delivered “to the person who is best placed to protect the
child” and such a person may not be the applicant who is either the parent or the
guardian of the child. This creates confusion with respect to who can such an
authority be and on what grounds is such a person appointed to be the authority as the
said Act does not specify any qualifications or ground rules for how or who such an
authority can be. This clearly shows how the Law cannot function swiftly.
23. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that with reference to the present
case, Sexual Offenders Disclosure Act, 2018, an Act known as National Database of
Sexual Offenders (hereinafter referred to as NDSO Act) has been established in India
in 2018, which includes the primary function of registering the convicts of sexual
offenders throughout India. The motive is to have a primary database which collects
basic information such as residential address, fingerprints, DNA sample, PAN number
not only of the convicted criminals but also of accused of such an offence. 42 The
above mentioned NDSO Act can be accessed through a secure National Information
Centre network, exclusively by authorized officials of the Law Enforcement Agencies

37
State vs. Ashok Kumar, SC No. 112/13 2013.
38
Supra note 7.
39
Section 12 of POCSO Act.
40
Maneka Gandhi v. UOI, 1978 AIR 597.
41
As mentioned in Para 9 of the Moot Proposition.
42
Moushumi Das Gupta, Govt. to start Database of sex offenders, HT, April 22, 2018.
INTRA-MURALS MOOT PROPOSITION

having access to inter operable criminal justice system43 while, on the other hand, the
Sansa Law provides with no such secure National Information Centre to look after the
confidentiality of the database collected.44 The Draft Personal Data Protection Bill,
2018 clearly states how any such personal data collected cannot be accessed by even
the authorities without notifying the concerned person of the nature and purpose of
the data processing.45 The Privacy of the accused in the circumstances is being
outrageously violated.
24. It is humbly submitted in the Hon’ble Court that the futile attempt of protecting the
privacy of the accused through signing a Non-Disclosure Form proves that Sansa’s
Law does not care about the Right to Privacy of the former convict.46 The primary
objective of the Constitution is to protect the Fundamental Rights of the citizens. To
protect the receiving party in the non-disclosure agreement, there needs to be a
consideration to make such an agreement viable47 which is absent in the current case.
At the same time, on the breach of such the agreement, there are no legal bindings
which make the agreement breakable.
25. The primary motive of NDF is to not disclose the private information collected in the
database to be disclosed to any third party, this would be a breach of the agreement.
Yet, the Law further empowers authorities to visit the residence and workplace of the
convict at any time of the day and without any notice. This could cause harassment to
the convicted person as his reputation may be affected, socially. Justice Bhagwati
observed that it is the fundamental right of everyone in this country to live with
human dignity, free from exploitation.48 After being released on completion of one’s
sentence from the prison, such a convict no longer remains a criminal in the eyes of
the law.

43
Press Information Bureau, Cyber Crime Prevention against Women and Children (CCPWC) portal to check
objectionable online content; National Database on Sexual Offenders (NDSO) to aid in monitoring &
investigation of sexual crimes, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, 20th July 2019, (20th Sept, 2018,
10:04 A.M.), http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=183597.
44
As mentioned in para 9 of the Moot Proposition.
45
PRS Legislative Research, Draft Personal Data Protection Bill, 2018.
46
As mentioned in para 9 of the Moot Proposition.
47
Section 2(d) of the Indian Contracts Act, 1872.
48
Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India, 1984 AIR 802.
INTRA-MURALS MOOT PROPOSITION

26. It is further contended that the Doctrine of Proportionality has therefore been adapted
to award punishments that the convicted person fulfils his time in the prison to come
out as any other citizen of the Country.49In such a situation, if the database collected
by the State is going to meddle with the human dignity of the person, this will violate
the Right protected under article 21 of the Constitution. “Good reputation was an
element of personal security and was protected by the Constitution, equally with the
right to the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property. The court affirmed that the right
to enjoyment of life, liberty, and property. The court affirmed that the right to
enjoyment of private reputation was of ancient origin and was necessary to human
society.”50 It is contended in the light of the present case that the reputation of the
petitioner has been affected as direct result of the said law. The confidentiality of
personal information of the convict was not maintained by the law enforcement
authorities.51 Mr. Roose Bolton, after registering with the local police station within
the stipulated period was treated unequally by the management and other staff
members of the hospital that he was employed as a janitor in. Furthermore, he was
fired on the grounds of non-performance, which was irrelevant. Mr. Roose Bolton
was also brutally beaten up by his former colleagues which makes it clear that this
was a direct result of the personal registered information being leaked to the public.
27. Thus, the Sansa Law violates the FR enshrined under Art 21.

2.2 THAT THE SANSA LAW VIOLATES ART 19 OF THE CONSTITUTION.

28. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that Article 19(1)(g)52 guarantees to
all citizens the right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or
business. Article 19(1)(g) is a fundamental right. Justice Kuldeep Singh has defined
the four expressions i.e profession, occupation, trade and business in the case of
Sodan Singh53 as mentioned: - “Profession means an occupation carried on by a
person by virtue of his personal and specialized qualifications, training or skill. The

49 49
that the punishment should not be disproportionate to the offence committed or the means that are used by
administration to obtain a particular objective or result should not me more restrictive than that are required to
achieve it.
50
D. F. Marion vs. Minnie Davis, 55 American LR 171.
51
As mentioned in para 11 of the Moot Proposition.
52
INDIAN CONST. Art 19(1)(g).
53
Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee AIR 1989 SCC 155
INTRA-MURALS MOOT PROPOSITION

word occupation has a wide meaning such as any regular work, profession, job,
principal activity, employment, business or a calling in which an individual is
engaged. Trade in its wider sense includes any bargain or sale, any occupation or
business carried on for subsistence or profit; it is an act of buying and selling of
goods and services. It may include any business carried on with a view to profit
whether manual or merchantile. Business is very wide term and would include
anything which occupies the time. Attention and labour of a man for the purpose of
profit. It may include in its form trade, profession, industrial and commercial
operations, purchase and sale of goods and would include anything which is an
occupation as distinguished from pleasure.”54
29. The state should not impose unreasonable restrictions which are arbitrary in nature.
The provisions of Sansa Law not only violated right to equality but also violated the
petitioner’s right to practice any profession mentioned in Art 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution. Due to the provisions of Sansa Law, the identity of Mr. Bolton was
disclosed and further it resulted in misbehaviour towards him by the hospital
management and staffs. The Petitioner was also beaten up and was fired from his job.
30. Thus, the Sansa Law violates the FR enshrined under Art 19(1)(g).

54
V.N Shukla , Constitution Of India, pg. 172-173 (12th ed., Eastern Book Company, 2013).
INTRA-MURALS MOOT PROPOSITION

ISSUE 3: THAT THE SANSA LAW VIOLATE ART 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION.

31. It is humbly submitted before this Court that Sansa Law violates Art 14 of the
petitioner as due to the registration under Sansa Law, Mr Bolton was treated
unequally. Mr. Bolton even felt that he was being ostracized by the management and
other staff members of the hospital. He was also fired from his job on the grounds of
non performance. After being fired he was beaten by some people who were later
known to be his colleagues. Article 1455 of the Constitution states that-
“The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal
protection of the laws within the territory of India Prohibition of discrimination on
grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.”
32. Article 14 under the Constitution, guarantees every citizen has equality before law
and equal protection of law56. It also prohibits discrimination on the grounds of
religion, race, sex or place of birth. Every citizen is required to be treated equally
before the law, no matter what his caste or gender is. Bhagwati, J.57 quoted,
“…Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot
be imprisoned within traditional and doctrinaire limits. Article 142 strikes at
arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. The
principle of reasonableness, which is legally as well as philosophically, is an
essential element of equality of non-arbitrariness, pervades Article 14 like a
brooding omnipresence.58”
33. According to the Indian Constitution, Equality before the law basically means that
equals should be treated equally and the law under constitution should treat everyone
equally while giving punishment or while protecting the rights of the people. It is
humbly submitted before the court that the ill-treatment done to Mr. Bolton by his
hospital management and staff members violate his right to equality. Mr. Bolton was
also ostracized due to the procedures of Sansa’s Law.

55
INDIAN CONST. art14.
56
Faridabad Singh v, New Delhi Municipal Committee, AIR 1996 SC 1175.
57
He is an economist and jurist in India.
58
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 S.C. 597.
INTRA-MURALS MOOT PROPOSITION

34. In another case, Indira Sawhney II v.UOI59, it was held by the court that the principle
of Equality is the basic feature of the constitution. Basic feature is the essential part of
the constitution and it is required to be fulfilled to enrich the constitution and hence,
violation of the article is violation of the constitution provisions.
35. It is humbly contended that in the case of Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. UOI60, the
SC held that “Any act of the repository of power, whether legislative or
administrative or quasi-judicial, is open to challenge if it is in conflict with the
Constitution or the governing act or the general principles of the law of the land or
if it is so arbitrary or unreasonable that no fair minded authority could ever have
made it.”
36. The fundamental right to equality enshrined under Art. 14 of the Constitution have
been violated because of the steps taken for the implementation of the Sansa Law.
Sansa Law violates the right to equality of the petitioner as the secrecy of being an
accused is not maintained by this law and due to which he has been treated unequally
by the people of his own hospital.
37. In Avinder Singh v. State of Punjab61 it was held that arbitrariness must be excluded
from the law, for if power is arbitrary, it is potential inequality, and Art 14 is fatally
allergic to inequality of the law.62 In the present case, the Sansa law is arbitrary in
nature and directly violates art. 14 of the Constitution.
38. It is humbly contented that the Supreme Court in Sivani’s63 case heavily emphasized
that the concept of reasonability should not be formulated on any abstract or general
notion but the Court must take into account whether law imposing restrictions has
maintained proper balance between social control and the rights of individuals. Thus
Reasonableness of restriction is to be determined in an objective manner and from the
standpoint of interest of the general public and make sure that restriction imposed is
not from the view point on whom the restriction is imposed but from the viewpoint of
the interest of public at large.64. In the present case, the government considered the
outrage to be the primary (principle) for enacting such a Law. Such an outrage was an

59
Indira Sawhney II v.UOI, (2000) 1 S.C.C. 168
60
Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd v UOI, 1990 AIR 1277
61
Avinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1979 SC 321.
62
Arvind P Datar, Commentary on the Constitution of India, (2nd ed Wadhwa Nagpur, 2007).
63
Sivani v. State of Maharshtra AIR 1995 SC 1770
64
M.P Jain ,Indian Constitutional Law Of India, 1132-1134 (6th ed., Lexis Nexis Butterworths 2010).
INTRA-MURALS MOOT PROPOSITION

immediate result of the published reports of media houses. Sansa Law violates the
fundamental rights possessed by the convicts as their privacy is outrageously violated
by the State. As the aforesaid case mentions that the test of reasonable restriction
should be on the basis that there is a balance between social control and the
individual’s fundamental rights, Sansa Law clearly violates this principle.
39. It is humbly submitted before the court that the State, considering the outrage of the
public enacted the Sansa Law.65 The outrage was a direct result of the newspaper
article published by “The Raven” wherein one of the published reports stated that
65% of the convicted sex offenders were the followers of R’hollor. The report
published by the newspaper was a factor that led to outrage. 8% of the population of
Westeros prays to “R’hollor”, the Lord of Light, which forms a minority of the
population. Westeros has a diverse culture with each state having its own distinct
socio-cultural characteristics66. The State by enacting such law as Sansa Law violates
the FR of equality. The State, by making such a Law, supported this report which
discriminated the R’hollor caste by stating that their caste supports sexual offences.
40. The doctrine of Reasonable Classification must not be over emphasized as it is only a
subsidiary rule involved to give practical content to the doctrine of Equality and
therefore the doctrine of equality should remain superior to doctrine of
classification.67 As per law the classification68 should be based upon two things69
,firstly, it should be based upon the Intelligible Differentia70 and secondly, the
Intelligible Differentia should have a rational nexus with the object sought to be
achieved71. In the present case, there is no intelligible differentia and that there is no
reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The petitioner humbly

65
As mentioned in para 9 of Moot Proposition.
66
As mentioned in para 4 of Moot Proposition.
67
Mohd.Shujat Ali v. UOI, AIR 1974 SC 1631
68
“Classification means segregation of classes which have a systematic relation, usually found in common
properties and characteristics.” 2 ACHARYA DR. DURGA DAS BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA, 1396 (8th Ed., LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur, 2007)
69
Kangshari v. State of W.B., 1960 SC 457(484); KedarNath v. State of West.Bengal. AIR 1953 SC 404; Ram
Sarup v. Union of India, AIR 1965 SC 247(252).
70
“The expression Intelligible Diffrentia means difference capable of being understood. A factor that
distinguishes or in different state or class from another which is capable of being understood”. 2 RAMANATHA
AIYER, ADVANCE LAW MEXICAN, 2391, (3rd Ed., 2005)
71
LaxmiKhandsari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1981 SC 873; Budhan v. State of Bihar, AIR 1970 SC 1453.
INTRA-MURALS MOOT PROPOSITION

submits that the Intelligible Differentia adopted by the government is not reasonable
and that it has no rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved.
41. Thus, Sansa’s law violates art 14 of the Constitution.
INTRA-MURALS MOOT PROPOSITION

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is humbly
prayed that this Hon’ble Supreme Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:

1. That the Hon’ble Supreme Court does have jurisdiction to entertain this case
under art 32 of the constitution.
2. That the said Law is in violation of article 21 and art 19 of the Constitution.
3. That the said Law is in violation of article 14 of the Constitution.

And pass any other order that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interests of justice,
equity and good conscience.

All of which is most humbly prayed

Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner

(Team Code T059)