Respondent Memo

TEAM CODE-[Type text]
TEAM CODE -42 [R]
IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF MANDIA

(CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION)
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO. …. OF 2017
IN THE MATTER OF:
SATISH DHANKAR…………...………………………………PETITIONER
VERSUS
UNION OF MANDIA…..…………………………………….RESPONDENT
(UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF MANDIA)
Most Respectfully Submitted before the Hon’ble Chief Justice and Other
Judges of Supreme Court of Judicature at Mandia.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
1
4TH JUSTICE MURTAZA HUSSAIN MOOT COURT COMPETITION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1) THE LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ………………………………………..3

2) THE INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………....4
3) THE STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………………………...6
4) THE STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………...7
5) THE STATEMENT OF ISSUES…………………………………………...9
6) THE SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………….10
7) THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED………………………………………..12
i) WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED IN THE PRESENT CASE
IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT OF MANDIA?
ii) WHETHER PEHCHAAN PROJECT IS ACTING AS A CONSTRAIN AND
VIOLATING THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF PRIVACY?
iii) WHETHER PEHCHAAN PROJECT IS IN DEFIANCE TO RIGHT TO FREEDOM
OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION?
iv) WHETHER PEHCHAAN IS AN ESSENTIAL REPOSITERY FOR THE PEOPLE?
8) THE PRAYER………………………………………………………………27
2
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AIR All India Reporter,
PAN Permanent Account Number
H.C High Court
PDS Public Distribution System
GOVT. Government
NUIA National Unique Identification Authority
I.T Information Technology
PIL Public Interest Litigation
HON'BLE Honourable,
IBID. Ibideum,
SC Supreme Court
ORS Others
SCC Supreme Court Cases
HCD High Court Decision
SEC. Section
U.O.I Union Of India
SCD Supreme Court Decision
SCR Supreme Court Reporter
SLP Supreme Leave Petition
VS Versus
3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
▪ Dhakeswari cotton Mills ltd.V Cit westbengal,(1955) AIR 65 (SC).
▪ Kunhayammed Vs State of Orissa, AIR 2000 SC 2587,2593.
▪ Mohammad Khalil Chishti Vs State of Rajasthan, 2013 GLJ 637(649) (SC).
▪ Narapat Singh Vs Jaipur Development Authority, AIR 2002 SC 2036.
▪ N.Suriyala Vs A.Mohandoss, (2007) 9 SCC 196.
▪ Sambhudas Vs State of Assam, (2010) 10 SCC 374.
▪ Sanwant Singh Vs State of Rajasthan, AIR 1961 SC 715.
▪ Tahira Khatoon Vs Salanbir Mohammad, (1999) 2 SCC 635.
▪ Pritam Singh Vs the State, AIR 1950 SC 169.
▪ Union of India Vs Rajeshwari & Co., (1986) AIR 1748.
▪ Raghunath Vs Pahulev Chagan Lal Sunderji& Co., (1999) 8 SCC 1 (SC).
▪ Kharak Singh Vs State Of U.P & Others, 1963 AIR 1295.
▪ M.P Sharma And Ors. Vs Satish Chandra, 1954 AIR 300.
▪ Pucl Vs Union of India, AIR 2004 1442.
▪ Justice K.S Puthuswamy & Ors. Vs Union of India,2017 SCC 99.
▪ Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar & Ors Vs State of Maharashtra, (1766) 3 SCR 744,753.
▪ Shantistar Builders Vs Narayan Khimlal Totame, (1990) 1 SCC 520.
▪ Deoki Nandan Vs Murlidhar AIR 1957 SC 133.
▪ Dharam Dutt Vs Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 1295.
▪ Papnasam Labour Union Vs Madura Coats Ltd., AIR 1945 SC 2200.
▪ Benett Coleman & Ors Vs Union of India, AIR 1973, SC 106.
▪ Noise Pollution In Re, AIR 2005 SC 3136.
▪ Ramlila Maidan Incident Vs Home Secretary, Union of India, (2012) 10 SCC 603.
▪ Yusuf Khan Vs Manohar Joshi, (1999) SCC (Cri) 577.
4
BOOKS REFERRED
(1). Pandey J.N., Constitutional Law of India, Ed. 52nd (2015)., Central Law Agency.
(2) Jain M.P. Indian Constitutional law, Ed. 6th (2012), Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa,
Nagpur.
(3). Shukla V.N., Constitution of India, Ed.11th, (2008), Eastern Book Company.
STATUTORY COMPILATION
(1) Aadhaar act, 2016
(2) The constitution of india,1950
WEBSITES REFERENCE
▪ www.indiakanoon.org
▪ www.indlawinfo.org
▪ www.legalserviceIndia.com
▪ www.legalsutra.org
▪ www.lexisnexisacademic.com
▪ www.macmillandictionary.com
▪ www.manupatra.com
▪ www.scconline.com
▪ www.scdecision.in
▪ www.supremeCourtcases.com
▪ www.vakilno1.com
5
THE STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Respondents have approached in response to the Special Petition to the

jurisdiction of the Honourable Supreme Court under Art. 1361 of the Constitution
of Mandia. The Respondents most humbly and respectfully submit to the
jurisdiction of the Honourable Supreme Court of Mandia.
1
Art. 136- Special Leave to Appeal by The Supreme Court: - (1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the
Supreme Court may, in its discretion grants special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination,
sentence or order in any case or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of Mandia.
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order passed or made by any
court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.
6
THE STATEMENT OF FACTS
BACKGROUND
1. Republic of Mandia after getting independence on 15th sept, 1946 enacted its
constitution which provided for a democratic parliamentary form of govt. with a
federal structure. It has its autonomous election commission and its Higher judiciary
has power of judicial review of laws and actions of govt. Mandia is a union of states
& is a secular state. Mandian govt. formulated a policy named “Pehchaan” for its
citizens by providing those Pehchaan cards for identifying citizens for various
benefits and saving duplicity of identities for detecting illegal immigrants and to
check leakage in govt. scheme by following “Zero Tolerance for Corruption”.
2. The policy had certain objectives like checking duplicity of election cards and
initiating tax collection through linking PAN & Bank accounts. Pehchaan cards
would be provided for free and linkage through network of cyber cells. National
Unique Identification Authority under the chairmanship of Mr. Rajeev Khanna
from 30th Nov. 2009 started making Pehchaan cards under the authority of govt. This
task was further delegated to private entities, who were in progress of taking basic
details of citizens like finger prints, iris of eye, blood group, spouse and children
details, educational qualification, diseases like AIDS, CANCER& HEPATITIS-B,
criminal/civil cases pending, govt. loan or any other liability.
JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
3. Petitioner, Mr. Satish Dhankar challenged the policy of Pehchaan card in Nelhi
High Court on 22jan,2016 by filing PIL on grounds of violation of Right to Privacy,
Right to Speech and Expression and lacking any law/statutory support.
4. On 24thjan, 2014, Mandian govt. made Pehchaan compulsory under various social
welfare schemes during pendency of PIL.
5. On 27thjuly, 2014 High Court passed interim order directing the govt. not to make
Pehchaan cards mandatory afterwards the petitioner contended that govt. cannot
make Pehchaan cards for different benefit and non-benefit schemes during pendency
of PIL.
7
6. The High Court permitted govt. to make Pehchaan cards mandatory for non-benefit
schemes after govt. filed an application on 28th July 2014 for use of Pehchaan cards
for non-benefit schemes like PAN, mobile connections and gas connections etc.
7. On 11th August 2014 the govt. of Mandia enacted a law called the Pehchaan Act,
2014. For providing statutory basis for both benefit & non-benefit schemes which
included check on data protection, penalty & punishments for data protection. Petition
filed application in High Court with original prayers to quash Pehchaan project.
8. On 13th Jan. 2015 the govt. made Pehchaan card mandatory for various scheme
programme like PAN, driving license, opening bank account through notification.
9. Fixation of March 2016 as deadline for linking Pehchaan cards with bank accounts
and pan cards. Petitioner’s pray to stay on notification was rejected by High Court as
he contended Pehchaan Act, 2014 violation of right to privacy, as data could be leaked
by private entities. Petitioner also stated about leakage of 13 crores data of citizens
through Pehchaan & claimed hacking of data by IIT graduate. He contended that
data may be used by majoritarian govt. or dictator to disturb Communal Harmony &
Pluralism of country. He also contended that it was against the right to life under
Article 21.
10. Respondent argued in High Court about ambit of right to privacy according
provision given in Constitution, and assented to bring substantive law as soon as
possible to support Pehchaan project more on statutory basis.
11. After following the whole procedure of case hearing. The High Court rejected PIL
and declared Pehchaan Act, 2014 constitutional to protect the State from terrorism
and security related problems from its hostile neighbours.
12. High Court also justified it by saying that it would provide appropriate benefits to
citizens by eradicating problem of duplicity of identities & reviewing dual election
cards.
13. The Petitioner went to Supreme Court of Mandia to file SLP under the provision of
constitution for quashing the judgment of High Court of Nelhi.
8
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
FOLLOWING ARE THE QUESTIONS BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT:
ON MAINTAINABILITY
ISSUE-1: Whether the special leave petition filed in the present case is maintainable before the
hon’ble court of Mandia?
ON MERITS
ISSUE-2: Whether Pehchaan project comes within the ambit of Fundamental Right to Privacy?
ISSUE-3: Whether Pehchaan project is in contravention of Right to Freedom of Speech and
Expression?
ISSUE-4: Whether Pehchaan is an essential repository for the welfare of people?
9
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED IN THE PRESENT CASE IS

MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF MANDIA.
It is most respectfully submitted before the Honorable Supreme Court of Mandia that
the instant petition is not maintainable as Special Leave cannot be granted when
substantial justice has been done and no exceptional or special circumstances exist
for case to be maintainable. In the present case no exceptional and special
circumstances exist and substantial justice has already been done.
It is contended by the respondents that no substantial question of law is involved in
the present case and the interference is based on pure question of fact which is entitled
to be dismissed. This court had laid down the test which says if the general principles
to be applied in determining the question of those principles the question would
not be a substantial question of law.
In the present case the petitioner has been unsuccessful to show any exceptional and
special circumstance exist, therefore he is not able to prove locus standi of his petition.
WHETHER PEHCHAAN PROJECT COMES WITHIN THE AMBIT OF

FUNDAMENATEL RIGHT TO PRIVACY
Right to Privacy falls under Article 21 i.e. Right to Life of the constitution of Mandia, but
the thing we must keep in mind is that NO fundamental Right is absolute in Mandia, which
means all fundamental rights are subject to their specific restrictions acc. to constitution of
Mandia. On the face of it may be seen that both right to privacy and Pehchaan are
interlinked to each other but it’s just a type of apparent character being created by the
petitioner. As in respective judgements mentioned below it has been concluded that Right
to Privacy casts as mere shadow on the Pehchaan project so it is ambiguous to mention
both in the same breath, in fact Pehchaan falls under the restrictions provided in
Fundamental right of Right to Privacy. And in present situation rights other than privacy
under article 21 have greater gravity for the development of Mandia. Also, while adherence
to principle of separation of powers the ultimate law-making body is the legislature if there
is an immediate need to introduce any law, some kind of involvement of this body is
10
necessary, as in the present case legislature was not taken in contention by the court in
relation to privacy bill, 2011.
WHETHER PEHCHAAN PROJECT IS IN CONTRAVENTION OF RIGHT TO

FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION
Article 19(1) (a) provides right to freedom of speech & expression which is subject to some
specific restrictions of freedoms provided in Article 19(1). These restrictions have been
provided from Article 19(2) to 19(6). The Supreme Court has laid down principles for
checking the constitutionality of a statutory provision imposing a restriction on the
Fundamental Right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) to (g). First one being the test of
reasonableness i.e. the restriction must not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature & judicial
approach must necessarily be dynamic, pragmatic and elastic, the other test being effect vs
subject matter test i.e. the true test is whether the effect of the impugned action is to take
away or abridge Fundamental Rights. The Right to remain silent is also a part of freedom
of speech & expression, but it is also subject to the ambit of its specific restrictions.
WHETHER PEHCHAAN IS AN ESSENTIAL REPOSITORY FOR THE WELFARE

THE PEOPLE.
Pehchaan policy already has constitutional backing by adherence to principles of equality,

fraternity and liberty given in preamble of the constitution of Mandia which was declared
as the part of the basic structure of the constitution and was declared non-amendable.
Through Pehchaan the govt. would become more transparent and accountable towards
citizens. Pehchaan would alleviate problems like duplicity of identities, corruption in PDS
and other welfare schemes. It would help the govt. mark or detect the citizens of the country
through it and facilitate according to their specific needs like health facilities to the people
having diff. types type of diseases, appropriate job opportunities on the basis of educational
qualifications, also detecting the illegal immigrants and deporting them to their countries,
therefore protecting nation and its citizens from terrorist’s infiltration to lay strong
foundation in the matter of national security.
11
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ON MAINTAINABILITY
[ISSUE 1] THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED IN THE PRESENT CASE IS

NOT MAINTAINABLE.
It is most humbly submitted before the Honorable Supreme Court of Mandia that the special
leave petition filed in the present case is not Maintainable as Special Leave cannot be granted
when substantial justice has been done and no exceptional or special circumstances exist for
case to be maintainable. It will not be granted if there is no failure of justice or when
substantial justice is done. Article 136 does not give a right to a party to appeal to Supreme
Court rather it confers wide discretionary power on the Supreme Court to interfere in suitable
cases2.
Also in the present case, no substantial question of law is involved and interference is based
on pure question off act which is entitled to be dismissed. A mere existence of substantial
question of law is not sufficient unless serious injustice of the substantial nature has been
occasioned3.
[1.1] THE PETITIONER HAS NO LOCUS STANDI UNDER ARTICLE 136 IN THE
PRESENT CASE
The power given to the Supreme Court by Article 136(1) is in the nature of residuary power.
The power is plenary in the sense that there are no words in Article 136 qualifying that power.
It is a sweeping power, exercisable outside the purview of ordinary law to meet the pressing
demands of justice. The Supreme Court has characterized its power under Article 136 as “an
untrammelled reservoir of power incapable of being confined to definitional bounds; the
discretion conferred on the supreme court being subjected to only one limitation, that is, the
wisdom and good sense of justice of the judges”. As mentioned in Kunhayammed v. State of
Orissa4
2
Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT West Bengal, (1955) AIR 65 (SC).
3
Hon’ble Justice Bhanwar Singh, Criminal Appeals, JTRIJournal,1995.
4
AIR 2000 SC 2587, 2593.
12
The Supreme Court has also described its voluntary nature of power given in Article 136 in the
case of Mohammed Khalil Chisti v. State of Rajasthan5
“The exercise of jurisdiction conferred by article 136 of the constitution on this court is
discretionary. It does not confer the right to appeal on a party to litigation; it only confers
discretionary power of widest amplitude on this court to be exercised for satisfying the
demands of justice. On the one hand, it is an exceptional power to be exercised sparingly with
caution and care to remedy extraordinary situations”. Hence the Supreme Court will grant
special leave to appeal in exceptional cases- where grave and substantial injustice has been
done by disregard to the forms of legal process violation of the principles of natural justice or
otherwise6.
The discretionary nature of power continues until the disposal of appeal7. In the landmark case
of Pritam Singh v. The State8, the Honourable Court concluded that it will not grant special
leave, unless it is shown that exceptional and special circumstances exist, that substantial and
grave injustice has been done.
In the present case the petitioner filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the High Court of
Nelhi on 22nd January 2010 against the Pehchaan policy, and fiercely contended that the policy
lacks statutory backup. The government in response to this argument altered its existing policy
and enacted a new law i.e. Pehchaan Act 2014, which provided statutory backup for the
Pehchaan policy and included a whole chapter on data protection, penalties and punishments
for data leakage. He then again tried to be a constraint in the smooth working of Pehchaan by
filing a fresh petition in the High Court quashing the whole Pehchaan Project of the
Government of Mandia. After hearing the matter in detail for more than 5 years, and going
through materials and documents submitted by petitioner and the respondent, the High Court
of Nelhi rejected the PIL and held that Pehchaan project has constitutional validity.
It is clear that the petitioner was given ample from the side of subordinate court to prove the
reasonability of his arguments which he evidently failed. And the petition filed by the petitioner
under Article 136 does not contain any of the above stated exceptions as declared by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanwant Singh vs State of Rajasthan. And hence there
are no grounds of substantial basis put forth by the petitioner on which the Supreme Court may
5
2013 CrLJ 637(649) (SC); Narpat Singh v. Jaipur Development Authority, AIR 2002 SC 2036: N. Suriyakala v.
A. Mohandoss, (2007) 9 SCC 196: Sambhudasvs State of Assam, (2010) 10 SCC 374.
6
Sanwant Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1961 SC 715.
7
Tahera khatoon v. Salambin Mohammad, (1999) 2 SCC 635.
8
AIR 1950 SC 169.
13
feel satisfied to allow the petitioner to follow the first step of filing a SLP i.e. the Supreme may
on its discretion grant or permit leave for hearing further arguments under SLP.
Therefore, in the present case the petitioner lack features of sufficient gravity to warrant a
review of the decision appealed against and hence the petitioner doesn’t have locus standi in
the present case which is evident by the facts stated above. The sub ordinate judiciary has time
to time tried its level best to maintain a minimum common difference in the interests of both
petitioner and respondents by giving them equal chance of stating their respective points as
mentioned in facts but the petitioner is still not satisfied. These actions of petitioner wholly
prove that he is constantly interfering in the long-term visionary project of the government to
grant himself retributive justice through judiciary reluctantly by barring their precious time.
[1.2]NO IRREGULARITY OF PROCEDURE OR VIOLATION OF

PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE HAS BEEN DONE.
In plethora of cases, it has been held that except that where there has been illegality or an
irregularity of procedure or a violation of principle of natural justice resulting in the absence
of a fair trial or gross miscarriage of justice, the SC does not permit a third review of evidence
with regard to question of fact in cases in which two courts of fact have appreciated and
assessed the evidence with regard to such questions9
It is contended that this court is not bound to go into the merits and even if it were to do so,
and declare the law or point out the error, still it may not interfere if the justice of the case on
facts doesn’t require interference or if it feels that the relief could be molded in a different
fashion10.
In relation of the facts of the present case the High Court has taken enough time (more than
5 years) on proceedings of the case with full rationality and reasonability to come to an
authentic solution, as the approach of the High Court was always pragmatic. Therefore, no
violation of principle of natural justice, miscarriage of justice has been done because the High
Court has not performed any irregularity in the procedure of fair trial, and given equal
opportunities to both the parties to prove their point.
9
Union of India v. Rajeswari & Co., (1986) AIR 1748 (SC).
10
Raghunath G. Pauhale v..Chagan Lal Sundar ji &Co.,(1999) 8 SCC 1 (SC).
14
ON MERITS
[ISSUE-2] WHETHER PEHCHAAN PROJECT COMES WITHIN THE AMBIT OF

FUNDAMENATEL RIGHT TO PRIVACY.
It is humbly submitted before Honourable Supreme Court of Mandia that the Pehchaan project
doesn’t come within the ambit of right to privacy because the Pehchaan project comes within
the exception provided for the fundamental right to privacy of citizens.
JUDGEMENT IN CONTENTION
In the recent case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy and Ors. v. Union of India and ors, the Supreme
Court delivered a landmark verdict and declared that Right to Privacy is a fundamental right
enshrined in Part III of the constitution of Mandia. Justice DY Chanderchud noted that
“Privacy is a constitutionally protected right which emerges primarily from the guarantee of
life and personal liberty in Article 21 of the Constitution”.
Although an 11 Judge bench is having more wisdom than a 9 Judge bench which decided the
case, but we feel that they correctly overruled the principles laid down in Kharak singh11 and
M.P Sharma12; we don’t wish to waste the precious time of the Honourable Supreme Court by
arguing about the constitutional validity of Right to Privacy.
Right to Privacy falls under Article 21 i.e. Right to Life of the constitution of Mandia, but the
thing we must keep in mind is No right is absolute in Mandia13, in which the 2 Judge bench
held that
“every right – legal or moral – carries with it a corresponding obligation. It is subjected to
several exemptions/exceptions indicated in broad terms. Unlike constitutions of some other
developed countries, however, no fundamental right in Mandia is absolute in nature.
Reasonable restrictions can be imposed on such fundamental rights. If a reasonable restriction
is imposed in the interest of the state by reason of a valid piece of legislation, the court would
normally respect the legislative policy behind the same”
In the present case, government introduced Pehchaan in the back drop of a Pehchaan Act, 2014
and demanded simple basic information for the welfare of the citizens on which the high court
too has taken note in their judgement, in favour of the government.
11
Kharak Singh v. The State of U. P. & Others, 1963 AIR 1295.
12
M. P. Sharma And Others v. Satish Chandra, 1954 AIR 300.
13
PUCL v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 1442.
15
Justice Chanderchud in the landmark Right to Privacy judgement noted that

“Like other rights which form part of the fundamental freedoms protected by Part III, including
the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, privacy is not an absolute right. A law,
which encroaches upon privacy, will have to withstand the touchstone of permissible
restrictions on fundamental rights. In the context of Article 21 an invasion of privacy must be
justified on the basis of a law which stipulates a procedure which is fair, just and reasonable.
The law must also be valid with reference to the encroachment on life and personal liberty
under Article 21. An invasion of life or personal liberty must meet the three-fold requirement
of (i) legality, which postulates the existence of law; (ii) need, defined in terms of a legitimate
state aim; and (iii) proportionality, which ensures a rational nexus between the objects and the
means adopted to achieve them; and (I) Privacy has both positive and negative content. The
negative content restrains the state from committing an intrusion upon the life and personal
liberty of a citizen. Its positive content imposes an obligation on the state to take all necessary
measures to protect the privacy of the individual. 4 Decisions rendered by this Court
subsequent to Kharak Singh, upholding the right to privacy would be read subject to the above
principles”.
Hence there is a three-fold requirement for Right to Privacy
(i) Legality, which postulates the existence of the law
Pehchaan scheme of the government is backed by a statute i.e. Pehchaan Act, which is enacted
as per the power provided in Article 24514.
(ii) Need
Pehchaan scheme is of a great need for the development of Mandia, many developed countries
in the world have similar schemes to keep the records of their citizens for maintaining the even
distribution of government funds and making sure that the benefits of the policies are reaching
to the poorest of the citizens. Why Pehchaan is necessary is further elaborated in Issue 4.
(iii) Proportionality which ensures a rational nexus between the objects and the
means adopted to achieve them
14
The Constitution of Mandia, art. 245, Extent of laws made by Parliament and by the Legislatures of States
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, Parliament may make laws for the whole or any part of the
territory of India, and the Legislature of a State may make laws for the whole or any part of the State
(2) No law made by Parliament shall be deemed to be invalid on the ground that it would have extra territorial
operation.
16
Under this scheme, the government demands some basic information from the citizens, the
main objective is to check if every citizen is getting the benefits of the policies or not, Mandia
is surrounded by hostile neighbours and there are frequent infiltrations form the terrorists in
the border areas of Mandia due to which the safety and sovereignty of the state is compromised.
Hence Pehchaan becomes pivotal in identifying between our citizens and terrorists. Also,
various other information demanded is for the welfare of the citizens only.
RELEVANCE BETWEEN PEHCHAAN & PRIVACY
Prima facie it might seem that Right to Privacy and Pehchaan are interlinked but it’s not, as
Justice AM Sapre noted15
“Some learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, however, argued that the law laid
down by this Court in some earlier decided cases though not referred for consideration be also
overruled while answering the questions referred to this Bench whereas some senior counsel
also made attempts to attack the legality and correctness of Pehchaan Scheme in their
submissions.”
“….It is for the reason that firstly, this Bench is constituted to answer only specific questions;
secondly, the submissions pressed in service are not referred to this Bench and lastly, it is a
settled principle of law that the reference Court cannot travel beyond the reference made
and is confined to answer only those questions that are referred 16....”
Suffice it to say that as and when any of these questions arise in any case, the court held that
an appropriate Bench will examine such questions on its merits in accordance with law. Hence
it is clear from the conclusion drawn by Justice Sapre that Right to Privacy casts as mere
shadow on the Pehchaan project so it is foolish to mention both in the same breath, in fact
Pehchaan falls under the restrictions provided in Fundamental right of Right to Privacy.
IMPORTANT RIGHTS EVOLVED BY VIRTUE OF ARTICLE 21
Mandia is a developing country, and reports of world bank show that is a huge section of our
population (numbering about 30% of Mandia) which lives below the poverty line, the basic
means to live a so called comfortable life is abstaining from them. They need what this
15
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy and Ors. v. Union of India (Right to Privacy Judgement).
16
Naresh Sridhar Mirajkar &Ors v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
17
Honourable court has termed as a mere ‘animal existence’. This Honourable court has, in a
catena of cases, taken the view that, the Right to Life guaranteed under Article 21 of the
constitution implies the Right to Food, water, decent environment, education, medical care and
shelter. For instance, in Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame17, it was held that
“Basic needs of man have traditionally been accepted to be three-food, clothing and shelter.
The right to life is guaranteed in any civilized society. That would take within its sweep the
right to food, the right to clothing, the right to decent environment and a reasonable
accommodation to live in. The difference between the need of an animal and a human being
for shelter has to be kept in view. For the animal, it is the bare protection of the body; for a
human being, it has to be a suitable accommodation which would allow him to grow in every
aspect - physical, mental and intellectual. The Constitution aims at ensuring fuller development
of every child. That would be possible only if the child is in a proper home. It is not necessary
that every citizen must be ensured of living in a well- built comfortable house but a reasonable
home particularly for people in India can even be mud-built thatched house or a mud- built
fire-proof accommodation”
As mentioned in the facts Mandia was a country that was ruled by Britica for about 150 years
from the date of its independence till today it has managed alter into a developing country, still
millions of people are devoid of basic necessities of life like food, clothing, jobs and do not
even have shelter due to which they are forced to sleep on pavements in the height of winters
perhaps to die, no claim to a Right to Privacy of the nature claimed in this case as a fundamental
right would lie. Any such claim would, in the background of what is stated above, be based on
an approach which is elitist in nature, especially in the light of the allegation that Pehchaan
would convert Mandia into a totalitarian state which is only a type of nightmare or an
assumption on the part of the petitioner that he contended in the high court.
Based on the arguments put forward through statutes and authorities in relevance of the facts
of the present case at last we want to conclude that on the basis of separation of power time to
time not only the executive but the judiciary also has tried to make cognizance of the fact that
there is by far quiet minute relation between Right to Privacy and Pehchaan and if someone
would want to argue on the basis of this minute relation than the government also has enough
reasonableness from its side to prove that its Pehchaan policy is within the ambit of restrictions
of fundamental right of Article 21.
17
(1990) 1 SCC 520.
18
SEPERATION OF POWERS
About Right to Privacy the government wants to argue that earlier it was not expressly
guaranteed in the constitution of Mandia but after the recent judgement it has been guaranteed
through informal method of amendment by the judiciary despite of the fact that ultimate law-
making body is legislature. Already Privacy Bill, 201118 that aimed to provide right to privacy
to citizens and to regulate collection, maintenance of their personal information is still pending.
The point in contention should be that there would have been some appropriate reason due to
which the legislature was reluctant to provide the citizens of this country with Right to Privacy.
In the present situation, also the Pehchaan policy is quite integrated to the benefits of public
matters i.e. welfare of public at large, as noted by the Supreme court in Deoki Nandan v.
Murlidhar19. Therefore, it has no motive anywhere to infringe the right to privacy of the
citizens.
18
Justice (retd.) KS Putthaswami v. Union of India, 2017 SCC 99.
19
AIR 1957 SC 133.
19
[ISSUE-3] PEHCHAAN PROJECT IS IN CONTRAVENTION OF RIGHT TO

FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION?
It is humbly submitted that Pehchaan project is not in contravention of right to freedom of
speech and expression because no fundamental right in Mandia is absolute in nature and
Pehchaan project comes within the ambit of reasonable restrictions provided in Article 19(2)20.
Freedom of speech is the bulwark of democratic government. This freedom is essential for the
proper functioning of the democratic process. Article 19(1) (a) provides for this right. The
freedom of speech and expression is regarded as the first condition of liberty. It has been truly
said that it is the mother of all liberties21.
Indeed, these rights are basic rights which are recognized and guaranteed as natural rights,
inherent in the status of a free country. However, the freedoms guaranteed by Article19(1) are
not
Absolute as no rights can be. Each of these rights is liable to be controlled, curtailed and
regulated to some extent by the laws made by the parliament and state legislatures.
Accordingly, clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19 provide grounds for reasonable restrictions a
legislature can impose on these rights. Rights in clause (1) “do not stand in common pedestal
but have varying dimensions and underlying philosophies” as stated in Dharam Dutt v. Union
of India22.
Hence there is a double test to check adjudge the validity of a restriction as per clauses 19(2)
to 19(6): -
(a) Whether it is reasonable?
(b) Whether it is for the purpose mentioned in the clause under which the restriction is
being imposed?
Test of Reasonableness
In Papnasam23, the Supreme Court laid down principles for checking the constitutionality of a
statutory provision imposing a restriction on the Fundamental Right guaranteed by Article
19(1)(a) to (g) they are: -
(a) The restriction must not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature so as to go beyond
the requirement of felt need of the society and object sought to be achieved. In the present
20
The constitution of Mandia , art . 19(2),19(1)(a).
21
Report of the Second Press Comm., Vol.I , 34-35.
22
AIR 2004 SC 1295.
23
Papnasam Labour Union v. Madura Coats Ltd., AIR 1995 SC 2200.
20
case the government only demanded information for profiling citizens and provide them with
the card called Pehchaan. As noted by the High Court of Nelhi, the main objective was to
identify citizens for the various benefits given by the government, prevent duplicity of
identities, prevent corruption, identify illegal immigrants, etc. Hence it is clear that restriction
is not arbitrary or excessive in nature and the government is correct to impose this restriction.
(b) In appreciating such problems and felt need of the society the judicial approach
must necessarily be dynamic, pragmatic and elastic. Indeed, from the time the petitioner
filed the PIL in subordinate court he was given ample time to be heard, in the course of
proceedings that seemingly went for more than five years the High Court ordered timely
stays in the project, but when the petitioner demanded the stay on the government’s
notification until the final disposal of the PIL the court refused to stay but agreed for a day
to day hearing of the case keeping in view the urgency of the matter. Hence it is clear that
the subordinate court deemed the restrictions reasonable and their approach was dynamic
rather than static and elastic rather than rigid as it should be.
Effect v. Subject- Matter Test
In Bennett Coleman24, the Honourable Supreme Court came out with a test to ascertain whether
a law violates Article 19(1) (a) or any other fundamental right.
“The true test is whether the effect of the impugned action is to take away or abridge
Fundamental Rights”. Here in the present case, under the Pehchaan scheme the government
is demanding basic information from the citizens for making Pehchaan card. Indeed, the
citizens are having the right to remain silent but we have to look at the broader picture here,
the intention of the government is not to harm the individual rights of the citizens but it’s for
their welfare. The High Court also upheld this stance of the government and held that right to
deny information to the government cannot be held to be a fundamental right in the light of the
necessity to protect the state from terrorism and other security related problems.
RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT
Right to Speech implies the right to silence. It implies freedom, not to listen and not to be
forced to listen. The right comprehends the freedom to be free from what one desires to be free
from for e.g. the use of loudspeaker may be incidental to the exercise of the right but, its use is
24
Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 106.
21
not a matter of right, or part of the rights guaranteed by Article 19(1) what one person may not
wish to hear as mentioned in case noise pollution (v) In re25. While it is necessary to maintain
and preserve freedom of speech and expression in a democracy, so also it is necessary to place
some curbs on this freedom for the maintenance of social order. No freedom can be absolute
or completely unrestricted26.
Accordingly, under Article 19(2), the state may make any law imposing ‘reasonable
restrictions’ on the exercise of right of freedom of speech and expression ‘in the interest of’
the security of the state, friendly relations with the foreign states, public order, decency,
morality, sovereignty and integrity of India, or ‘in relation to contempt of court, defamation
or incitement to an offence. As noted by the High Court Pehchaan scheme is necessary to
protect the state from terrorism and other security related problems, like illegal immigrants.
Also, Pehchaan policy helps eradicate the problem of duplicity of identities, which helps
making elections free and fair, and checks the corruption in government schemes like PDS and
many more multifarious benefits that would be mentioned in ISSUE-4.
Hence the scheme is in the interest of the security of the state, helps maintain public
order, morality and sovereignty and integrity of the nation. The facts clearly indicate that
the Pehchaan policy falls under restrictions provided in Article 19(2) to 19(6).
25
AIR 2005 SC 3136.
26
Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union of India, (2012)10 SCC 603.
22
[ISSUE-4] PEHCHAAN IS AN ESSENTIAL REPOSITORY FOR THE WELFARE

THE PEOPLE.
It is humbly submitted that the Pehchaan Card is indispensable in nature at present situation
both for the Govt. to implement a stark hold in the matter of maintenance of Sovereignty of
country and for the people to alleviate their Identity Crisis.
[4.1] PEHCHAAN IS QUITE PIVOTAL

Pehchaan was introduced vigilantly by the keeping all things in contention like keeping in mind
the federal and democratic structure of the country, so that it may not act as a hindrance for the
smooth functioning of democracy .It wholly implements the goal of the preamble of the
country as Pehchaan card in the hand of every citizen would lead to Egalitarianism in the
nation which is in favour of Equality of status and opportunity as mentioned as the basic
feature of the preamble in natural resources allocations In re27 and the constitution itself.
Equality among individuals would inculcate them with the feeling of brotherhood and family
among themselves as no one would be over and above each other, which would be a type of
initiation towards the principle of Fraternity. As the citizens of the country holding Pehchaan
card in their hands would lead removal of any doubt in the mind of the govt. about their
respective identities, therefore they would have full freedom to question the running govt on
any matter, which would also work or would be an adherence to the principle of Liberty of
thought and expression therefore the govt. has upheld individual liberty according to values
declared in the case of Yusuf Khan v. Manohar Joshi28. By following of these principles of
Preamble there is already a sense of Legal Backup to Pehchaan. Execution of these principles
through Pehchaan would also force the govt. itself to be more focused and visionary for
implementation of Transparency, as the citizens would be authorized enough to maintain a
kind check and balance on every single programme and policy brought by the govt. ,and also
Accountability as govt. would be needed to pass through the test of transparency , so therefore
any folly or mistake on the part of the govt. would be taken as an initiation of bad governance
and as mentioned above the authorized citizens would always be there to force the govt. to be
circumspect before bringing anything new for the citizens of the country such that it may not
be Arbitrary29 in nature.
27
2012 AIR SCW 6194.
28
(1999) SCC (Cri) 577.
29
Supra.
23
Although the govt. was quite reluctant to argue on the benefits of Pehchaan but the vague and
time-consuming petitions filed by petitioner has forced us to shed light on pros of the policy to
overcome the imaginary cons established by the petitioner.
1) The Pehchaan was meant to identify citizens for various benefits & also saving
duplicity of identities by which the govt would be able to detect illegal immigrants, terrorists
belonging to hostile neighbours taking superfluous shelter in the country, which would help
the govt. to deport them to their respective countries. As working on the principle of Directive
Principle of State Policy30 government wants to promote international peace & security and
further maintaining just and honourable relations between nations.
2) The main aim of the policy which would hold as a subset of the policy was to check
& then fix the leakage in govt. schemes, to prevent corruption happening in PDS and other
subsidy providing schemes of the govt., which was acting as filtration as the appropriate
policies made for the people were not able to testify itself on reality grounds in terms of
implementation.
3) The govt. is working with a broad vision of development in mind with the viewpoint
of convenient method of tax extraction from the citizens by linking their Permanent
Account Numbers and Bank Accounts which would provide govt. with authentic
information about regular transactions of the citizens. Resulting money collected through tax
as also mentioned in Binoy Viswam case31, the Supreme Court held that the decision of
linking Pehchaan with PAN is correct with purpose of unearthing black money or checking
money laundering and hence introducing Pehchaan into tax regime. Past unveiling money
stored in Hawala transactions could be used for betterment of its citizens by investment of
that money on the infrastructure of the country
4) The govt. was in need to be acquainted of what we call after the privacy judgment
confidential details, people are happy to share these types of details to social networking
sites, without any benefit in return. Govt. by knowing detail of each individual would be able
to facilitate everyone with different approach for example by knowing about educational
qualifications govt. would be able to provide appropriate employment to the people, by
knowing about life-threatening diseases like Aids, Cancer and Hepatitis-B govt. would be
able to take impulsive actions for the assistance of health facilities to the citizens for the
eradication of these diseases. And by cognizance of the facts related to criminal/civil cases
30
The constitution of Mandia art. 51 (a) &, (b).
31
Binoy Viswam v. Union of India & Ors., (9th sept,2017).
24
pending in any court, govt. loan or any other liability on citizens’ govt. would be able to mark
& detach the offenders of the law of the country and also would be able to provide any help
to whosoever ready to alter his past gloomy personality through Rehabilitation Centres.
MISINTERPRETATION
1) The petitioner is roaming around the world of misunderstanding & misinterpretation
related to Pehchaan as time to time he has filed petition behind the back of PIL to work for
the fulfilment of its own fictional & unknown objective high-handedly.
2) The High Court also justified mandatory nature of Pehchaan by making innumerable
benefits of Pehchaan card in contention. High Court also accepted govt’s. Statement on hiring
of private entities that the govt. is not having adequate resources and staff for this purpose
and hence it’s outsourcing of data collection was specified because of stigmatic reasons like
lack of resources, expertise and staff with the govt.
3) The petitioner has also confronted that 13 Crore data of citizens was leaked from
Pehchaan database which is completely erroneous on the part of the petitioner, as first of all
petitioner has not veiled the source from which he collected this fake information. And
second of all 13 Crore citizens mean 10% Of Mandian Population, effect on this much
population would have made this the matter of National Importance for which the Supreme
Court would have itself taken a Suo moto cognizance in the interest of equity, justice and
good conscience.
4) The petitioner is also not lucid about the matter of so called hacking of data by IIT
graduate. As mentioned the Pehchaan act contains a whole chapter on data protection and
penalties and punishments, specially mention in Section 37 and 38 of Pehchaan Act.
Therefore, the culprits would be punished based on prescribed procedure. The National
Unique Identification Authority has also been considered within the ambit of protected
system under Information Technology32 with specific penal measures defined for the
offenders of law i.e. who might try to hack the system.
Informational privacy is a facet of the right to privacy. The dangers to privacy in an age of
information can originate not only from the state but from non-state actors as well. The Union
Government is trying to examine and put into place a robust regime for data protection. The
creation of such a regime requires a careful and sensitive balance between individual interests
and legitimate concerns of the state. The legitimate aims of the state would include for instance
protecting national security, preventing and investigating crime, encouraging innovation and
32
Information Technology Act, (2000), s .70.
25
the spread of knowledge, and preventing the dissipation of social welfare benefits. These are
matters of policy to be considered by the Union government while designing a carefully
structured regime for the protection of the data.
Henceforth, govt. has already brought Pehchaan policy by not keeping behind any of the legal
aspects pre-requisite to be used as a statutory back up, but still taking responsibility of all of its
citizens it is ready to bring a complementary substantive law for protection of data within a
specific time period.
26
PRAYER
In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this
Honorable Court be pleased to adjudge and declare that: -
1. Special leave petition is not maintainable.

2. Uphold the order of Honorable High Court of Nelhi i.e. Pehchaan Act,2014 is
constitutional & Govt can make Pehchaan cards mandatory for citizens.
And any other order as it deemed fit in the interest of equity, justice & good conscience.
All this is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Mandia.
27

Respondent Memo

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Respondent Memo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TEAM CODE-[Type text]

TEAM CODE -42 [R]

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF MANDIA

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO. …. OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF:

(UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF MANDIA)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1) THE LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ………………………………………..3

AIR All India Reporter,

PAN Permanent Account Number

H.C High Court

PDS Public Distribution System

NUIA National Unique Identification Authority

I.T Information Technology

PIL Public Interest Litigation

SCC Supreme Court Cases

HCD High Court Decision

U.O.I Union Of India

SCD Supreme Court Decision

SCR Supreme Court Reporter

SLP Supreme Leave Petition

(1) Aadhaar act, 2016

(2) The constitution of india,1950

THE STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Respondents have approached in response to the Special Petition to the

THE STATEMENT OF FACTS

FOLLOWING ARE THE QUESTIONS BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT:

WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED IN THE PRESENT CASE IS

WHETHER PEHCHAAN PROJECT COMES WITHIN THE AMBIT OF

WHETHER PEHCHAAN PROJECT IS IN CONTRAVENTION OF RIGHT TO

WHETHER PEHCHAAN IS AN ESSENTIAL REPOSITORY FOR THE WELFARE

Pehchaan policy already has constitutional backing by adherence to principles of equality,

[ISSUE 1] THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED IN THE PRESENT CASE IS

[1.2]NO IRREGULARITY OF PROCEDURE OR VIOLATION OF

[ISSUE-2] WHETHER PEHCHAAN PROJECT COMES WITHIN THE AMBIT OF

Justice Chanderchud in the landmark Right to Privacy judgement noted that

RELEVANCE BETWEEN PEHCHAAN & PRIVACY

IMPORTANT RIGHTS EVOLVED BY VIRTUE OF ARTICLE 21

[ISSUE-3] PEHCHAAN PROJECT IS IN CONTRAVENTION OF RIGHT TO

RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT

[ISSUE-4] PEHCHAAN IS AN ESSENTIAL REPOSITORY FOR THE WELFARE

[4.1] PEHCHAAN IS QUITE PIVOTAL

Honorable Court be pleased to adjudge and declare that: -

1. Special leave petition is not maintainable.

You might also like