R 48

Team Code: R-48
LEX OMNIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION-2015
IN THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF PAMMU
Writ Petition (s) (Civil) No (s)._______/2015
COMMON CAUSE AND ANR.

Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF PAMMU
Respondent(s)
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS -
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS -
II
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
III
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
STATEMENT OF FACTS
XI
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
XIII
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
XIV
PLEADINGS AND AUTHORITIES
I. THE REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLES ACT (THIRD AMENDMENT) ORDINANCE, 2014

IS NOT ARBITRARY IN NATURE AND DOES NOT AFFECT THE RIGHT OF PETITIONER
TO CONTEST THE ELECTIONS.
1
A. THE ORDINANCE IS VALID AND NOT ULTRA VIRES TO THE CONSTITUTION. -
B. THE ORDINANCE IS NOT IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
II. THE TELECOM ORDER ONLY TARGETING THE WEBSITES PROMPTING REVENGE
PORN IS VALID.
4
A. THE BAN ON SITES PROMOTING REVENGE PORN DOES NOT VIOLATE ART. 14. 4
B. THE BAN FALLS WITHIN THE REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS AS ENSHRINED IN ARTICLE
19(2) OF THE CONSTITUTION. 6
C. THE PROVISIONS OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2008 EMPOWER THE
GOVERNMENT TO BAN SUCH WEBSITES.
8
III. THE GAUVANSH SANRAKSHAN
CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID. A. THE IMPUGNED ACT
CONSTITUTION.
-
AND
GAUSAMVARDHAN ACT
-
FURTHERANCE
-
IS IN
OF
DPSP
-
2015
9
OF
PART IV
-
GIVEN IN
IS
OF THE
B. THE ACT IS NOT VIOLATIVE OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE CITIZENS.-
11
PRAYER
XV
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
Section
Paragraph
A.I.R.
All India Reporter
Anr.
Another
Art.
Article
cl.
Clause
Dist.
District
Ed.
Edition
Honble
Honourable
IT
Information Technology
MP
Member of Parliament
Ors.
Others
PCA
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
SBP
Sabka Vikaas Party
UOI
Union of India
v.
Versus
II
CASES CITED:
CASE NAME
S. NO.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
PAGE
NO.
A.K. Roy v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 710
Akhil Bharat Gosewa Sangh v. State of A.P. and Ors., 2006 (2)
10
A.C.R. 1289 (S.C.)

Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraj and Ors., 2014 (4)
11
A.B.R. 556
Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1973 S.C.
106
Bobby Art International v. Om Pal Singh Hoon, A.I.R. 1996 S.C.
1846
6.
Brir Gopal v. State of MP, A.I.R. 1979 M.P. 173
7.
Champakam Dorairajan v. State of Madras, A.I.R. 1951Mad. 120
Chandra Bhawan Boarding and Lodging Bangalore v. State of
11
8.
9.
Mysore, (1969) 3 S.C.C. 84

Chandra Raja Kumari v. Police Commissioner, Hyderabad 1998
(1) A.L.D. 810
10. Chiranjit Lal v. Union of India, 1950 S.C.R. 869
12
11. D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 579
12. Dhirendra v. Legal Remembrancer , 1955 1 S.C.R. 224
12
13.
14.
Director General, Directorate of Doordarshan v. Anand
Patwardhan, A.I.R. 2006 S.C. 3346

Dulari Devi & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. A.I.R. 2015 Raj.
84
15. Gopi Chand v. Delhi Administration, A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 609
III
16.
17.
18.
Gurudevdatta VKSSS Maryadit v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R.
1,2
2001 S.C. 1980

Haji Usman Bhai Hasan Bhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat, A.I.R.
12
1986 S.C. 1213

Indian Handicrafts Emporium v. Union of India A.I.R. 2003 S.C.
14
3240
19. Javed and Ors. v. State of Haryana, A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 3057
20. K. Nagraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 551
11
K. Thimmappa v. Chairman Central Board of Directors SBI,

21.
12
A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 467
22. K.Venu v. Director-General of Police. A.I.R. 1990 Ker.344
23. Keshvananda Bharti v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 S.C.C. 225
11
24. Knuller v. DPP, (1972) 2 All. E.R. 898
Krishna Kumar v. Municipal Committee of Bhatapara , Petition
13
25. No. 660 of 1954 decided on 21st February 1957 by Constitution

Bench
26. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, (1980) 2 S.C.C. 591
Municipal Corp. Ahmedabad v. Jan Mohamed Usman Bhai,
27.
Om Prakash and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., (2004) 3 S.C.C.
8
14
402
Papnasam Labour Union v. Madura Coats Ltd. and Anr., A.I.R.
30.
12,14
(1986) 3 S.C.C. 20
28. New York vs. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982)

29.
10
14
1995 S.C. 2200
31. R v. Stanley, (1969) 1 All. E.R. 1035
32. R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 S.C.C. 632
33. R.C. Cooper v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 564
34. R.K. Garg v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 2138
1,3
IV
35. Rajani v. State, A.I.R. 1958 All. 360
36. Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar, A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 538
37. Ranjit v. Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 88 (885)
38.
Razakbhai Issakbhai Mansuri and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and
14
Ors., 1993 Supp (2) S.C.C. 659
39. Sat pal & Co. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1550
1,2
40. State of Bombay v. Balsara, 1951 S.C.R. 682
12
41.
State of Gujarat and Ors. v. Akhil Gujarat Pravasi and Ors., (2004)
14
5 S.C.C. 155
State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat and Ors., 10,13,14
42.
A.I.R. 2006 S.C. 212
43. State of Karnataka v. B.A. Hasanabha, A.I.R. 1998 Kant. 210
44. State of M.P. v. Bhopal Sugar Industries, A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1179
12
45. State of Orissa v. Bhupendra, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 945
46. State of Punjab v. Satya Pal Dang, A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 903
47. State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 1361
48.
State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. v. M/s. Sanjeetha Trading Co. and
Ors., (1993) 1 S.C.C. 236
49. State of Tamil Nadu v. L. Abu Kavier Bai, A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 326
T. Venkata Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, A.I.R. 1985 S.C.
50.
51.
14
11
1,2
724: (1985) 3 S.C.C. 198

Workmen on Meenakshi Mills Ltd. and Ors. v. Meenakshi Mills
Ltd. And Anr., (1992) IILLJ 294 S.C.
12
STATUTES AND RULES CITED:

S. No.
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
1.
PAMMU PENAL CODE, 1860
2.
THE CONSTITUTION OF PAMMU, 1950
3.
THE REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLES ACT, 1951
4.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2008
5.
RULES OF PROCEDURE AND CONDUCT OF BUSINESS IN LOK SABHA
6.
THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (INTERMEDIARY GUIDELINE) RULES,

2011
7.
THE INDECENT REPRESENTATION OF WOMEN (PROHIBITION) ACT, 1986
8.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (PROCEDURE AND SAFEGUARDS FOR

BLOCKING FOR ACCESS OF INFORMATION BY PUBLIC) RULES, 2009
9.
THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT, 1960
ARTICLES REFERRED:
S. No.
1.
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
Calvert, Clay. Revenge Porn and Freedom of Expression: Legislative
Pushback to an Online Weapon of Emotional and Reputational
Destruction. Ford Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. LJ 24 (2013):673 ; Franks,
Mary Anne Combating Non-Consensual Pornography: A Working
Paper, (working paper, University of Miami Law School, Coral Gables,
FL, September 18, 2013)
2.
Citron, Danielle Keats and Franks, Mary Anne, Criminalizing Revenge

Porn (May 19, 2014). Wake Forest Law Review, Vol. 49, 2014, p. 345; U
of Maryland Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2014-1
VI
Power in Numbers, (8th October, 2015, 5:36 PM), available at
3.
www.endrevengeporn.org/revenge-porn-infographic/
Halder, Debarati, and K. Jaishankar. Revenge Porn by Teens in United
4.
States and India: A Socio-Legal Analysis. International Annals of

Criminology, 51.1-2(2013):85-111
B. Shantanu, On Cow Slaughter etc, (7 October, 2015, 7:02 PM),
5.
available at http://satyameva-jayate.org/2012/02/08/cow-slaughter/
6.
Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying & Fisheries (Ministry of

Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Govt. of India), (13 October, 2015,
10:32 AM), available at http://dahd.nic.in/dahd/reports/report-of-thenational-commission-on-cattle.aspx
7.
Dr. Ashok Dhamija, Constitutional Validity of Cow Slaughter Ban in

Maharashtra-a detailed analysis, (11 October, 2015, 02:54 PM), available
at
http://tilakmarg.com/opinion/constitution-validity-of-cow-slaughter-
ban-in-maharashtra-a-detailed-analysis/
Harish Damodaran, Heres why India is set to lose status of worlds largest
8.
beef
exporter (
16
October, 2015, 05:37 pm),
available
at
http://indianexpress.com/article/explained/beefed-up-no-longer/
Krishnadas Rajagopal, Cant stop an adult from watching porn in his room,
9.
says
SC,
(16
October,
2010,
4:46
PM),
available
at
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/cant-stop-an-adult-fromwatching-porn-in-his-room-says-sc/article7400690.ece
10.
Shubhojit, Significance of Article 14 of Indian Constitution, (2 October,

2015,
11:45
PM),
available
at
http://www.elections.in/political-
corner/significance-of-article-14-of-indian-constitution/
BOOKS REFERRED:
1 Durga Das Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India, LexisNexis,

2007, 8th Edition.
VII

2007, 8th Edition.

2008, 8th Edition.

2008, 8th Edition.
P.K. Majumdar & R.P. Kataria, Commentary on the Constitution of India,

Orient Publishing Company, 2009, 10th Edition.
2 Durga Das Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India, LexisNexis 2014,

9th Edition.
3 Durga Das Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India, LexisNexis, 2014,

9th Edition.

9th Edition.

9th Edition.
1 Arvind P Datar, Commentary on the Constitution of India, LexisNexis, 2010,

2nd Edition.
2 Arvind P Datar, Commentary on the Constitution of India, LexisNexis, 2010,

2nd Edition.
MP Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, Wadhwa Nagpur, 2007, 5th Edition.
1 HM Seervai, Constitutional Law of India, Universal Law Publishing Co.,

2014, 4th Edition.
1 Samaraditya Pal, Indias Constitution Origins and Evolution, LexisNexis,

2014, 1st Edition.
2 Samaraditya Pal, Indias Constitution Origins and Evolution, LexisNexis,

2014, 1st Edition.
Vol. VIII, Constituent Assembly Debates, Lok Sabha Secretariat, 5th Reprint
Brajesh Rajak, Pornography Law, Universal Law Publishing Co., 2011
9 V.R. Manohar and W.W. Chitaley, The AIR Manual (Civil and Criminal), 5th
Edition.
10 V.R. Manohar and W.W. Chitaley, The AIR Manual (Civil and Criminal),
5th Edition.
VIII
INTERNATIONAL AUTHORITIES CITED:

1. EUROPEAN CONVENTION
FOR THE
PROTECTION
FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOM.
2. UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS.
DATABASES REFERRED:
http://www.manupatra.com
http://www.westlawindia.com
http://www.lexisnexis.com
IX
OF
HUMAN RIGHTS
AND
The counsels on the behalf of the respondent have endorsed their pleading in
response to the petition filed by the petitioners under the aegis of Article 321 of the
Constitution of Pammu. The counsels would humbly contest the constitutional
validity of the Ordinance, the Telecom Order and the Gauvansh Sanrakshan and
Gausamvardhan Act of 2015.
PAMMU CONST. art. 32:

Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part.(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights
conferred by this part is guaranteed.
(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 clauses (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.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. Pammu is a quasi-federal country, rich in its cultural history. The laws of

Pammu are pari materia to the laws of India.
B. There are two major national political parties in Pammu, namely Janhit Party
and Sabka Vikaas Party (hereinafter, referred as SBP). The SBP had been in
power at the centre since past 10 years. The government was fairly popular with
regard to its social policies and was considered quite tolerant to speech and
expression of the general public. The next general elections were scheduled in
May 2014.
C. In a parliamentary session held in December 2013, the SBP government
introduced a bill which sought to bring in an amendment to the Representation
of Peoples Act, 1951 to introduce certain educational qualifications for being
eligible to contest elections for Member of Parliament. This amendment was
opposed by all the opposition parties including the Janhit Party. The opposition
to this amendment was so staunch that the entire parliamentary session was
washed out leading to a huge financial loss to the exchequer.
D. After the session adjourned, the SBP government came up with an Ordinance
titled the Representation of Peoples Act (Third Amendment) Ordinance, 2014.
The Ordinance provided that, to be eligible for contesting MP elections, a
candidate must have passed class 10 of the Board of Secondary Education or its
equivalent.
E. The SBP during its election campaign, said that this Ordinance was an electoral
reform measure that would raise the standard of elected representatives who
will get better acquainted with Government schemes and policies for more
informed implementation. The government also said that it was a progressive
reform and would raise the education standing of the state.
F. Another important issue for SBP was to regulate the proliferation of
pornographic websites on the internet which were in bad test, disrespected
women and were against cultural tenets of Pammu. SBP promised that it would
take down all such pornographic websites if gets elected.
G. In the May 2014 general elections, SBP came out as the single largest party.
After the SBP came into power, it asked the Law Ministry to invite suggestions
XI
STATEMENT OF FACTS
from the general public on how to tackle the proliferation of such websites on
the internet.
H. After few months, the Telecom Ministry came out with a Telecom Order
advising the internet service providers and telecom operators to control free and
open access to around 900 porn websites.
I. The Telecom Minister Mr Sibbal said, There is no total ban. This was done in
the backdrop of some websites promoting revenge porn. The idea is also to
protect Pammus cultural fabric. The government said that it had acted on the
representations received from the public.
J. After the ban on revenge porn, the government passed Gauvansh Sanrakshan
and Gausamvardhan Bill, 2015 which criminalized slaughtering of cows, bulls
& bullocks; selling and consumption of beef.
K. Aggrieved by this, Mr Mootkar Ritwick Roshan filed a writ petition in the
Honble Supreme Court of Pammu that his right to contest elections has been
affected by the Ordinance. NGO Common Cause also filed two separate
petitions in the Honble Court against the ban on porn websites and
criminalization slaughtering of cows, bulls & bullocks; selling and consumption
of beef. NGO also intervened in the writ petition filed by Mr Roshan. The
Honble Supreme Court clubbed the matters as the plaintiffs and respondents
were same in all the three cases. The Honble Supreme Court of Pammu also
decided that the present petition is maintainable and it has the requisite
jurisdiction to hear the matter.
XII
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
The following issues are presented before the Honble Supreme Court of Pammu:-
I. WHETHER THE REPRESENTATION

ORDINANCE, 2014
IS
OF
PEOPLES ACT (THIRD AMENDMENT)
ARBITRARY IN NATURE AND AFFECTS THE RIGHT
OF
PETITIONER TO CONTEST THE ELECTIONS OR NOT.

II. WHETHER THE TELECOM ORDER ONLY TARGETING THE WEBSITES PROMPTING
REVENGE PORN IS VALID OR NOT.
III. WHETHER THE GAUVANSH SANRAKSHAN AND GAUSAMVARDHAN ACT OF 2015 IS
CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID OR NOT.
XIII
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
I.
It is most respectfully submitted before this Honble Supreme Court that the
Representation of Peoples Act (Third Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 is not
arbitrary in nature and does not affect the right of the petitioner to contest
elections. The Ordinance is valid as the President acted in his legislative
capacity and was, on the advice of Council of Ministers, satisfied with the
existence of circumstances which rendered it necessary to bring such law. The
Ordinance is also not violating Article 14 as there is a rational nexus between
the restriction imposed and object sought to be achieved.
II.
It is most humbly submitted before this Honble Supreme Court that the
Telecom Order controlling the free and open access to around 900 websites is a
valid order. Since revenge porn is uploaded without the permission of victim, it
affects their right to privacy. The order controlling the access of 900 revenge
porn websites, therefore, cannot be regarded as an arbitrary act. Further, the
Telecom Order targets the sites promoting revenge porn and does not impose a
total ban on all the pornographic websites. It is merely a restriction and not
extinction of right to freedom of speech and expression. Hence, the impugned
act is not violative of Article 19(1) (a). Further, the telecom order is valid since
the provisions of the IT act, 2008 empowers the State to come up with such
orders.
III.
It is most humbly submitted before the Honble Court that the Gauvansh
Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015 is constitutionally valid. It is in
furtherance to the implementation of the DPSP under Article 48 and Article 48A which are fundamental in the governance of the Country. Further, it is not
violative of fundamental rights of the Citizens under Article 14 and Article
19(1) (g) of the Constitution. This is so, because the impugned act has made a
reasonable classification among butchers who slaughter different cattle and the
classification has a strong nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The
restriction imposed on the business of butchers is also reasonable as it is not a
total prohibition on their activities and is in the interest of public at large.
XIV
I.
THE REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLES ACT (THIRD AMENDMENT) ORDINANCE,

2014 IS NOT ARBITRARY IN NATURE AND DOES NOT AFFECT THE RIGHT OF
PETITIONER TO CONTEST ELECTIONS.
1.
It is most respectfully submitted before this Honble Court that the Ordinance
which was brought up by the President under Article 1232 is valid because he is
legislatively competent to do so3. The argument put forward to support the
above contention is twofold: firstly, the Ordinance is valid and not ultra vires
the Constitution [A] and secondly, it is not in violation of Article 144[B].
A.
THE ORDINANCE
IS
VALID
AND
NOT
ULTRA
VIRES
TO
THE
CONSTITUTION.
2.
It is most respectfully submitted that the Ordinance is valid as the president

exercised his right of promulgating an Ordinance under Article 1235 of the
Constitution. The president was satisfied with the existence of circumstances
which rendered it necessary for him to take an immediate action through the
Ordinance6. The reasons behind this Ordinance bear a reasonable nexus with
the power that the President exercised, and therefore, the satisfaction of the
president is conclusive.7 The President acted in the capacity of Legislature while
promulgating this Ordinance.8 This law cannot be struck down because of nonapplicability of mind as it is a legislative act and not an executive act9, and also
because it is a policy decision taken by the government.10
PAMMU CONST. art. 123.

T. Venkata Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 724: (1985) 3 S.C.C. 198, 7 (Chief
Justice Y.V. Chandrachud).
4
5
Supra note 2.
6
R.C. Cooper v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 564, 25 (Justice J.C. Shah).
7
State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 1361, 128 (Chief Justice M. Hameedulla Beg).
8
Sat pal & Co. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1550, 3 (Justice D.A. Desai).
9
K. Nagraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 551, 31 (Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud);
A.K. Roy v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 710, (Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud); R.K. Garg v.
Union of India, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 2138, 6 (Justice P.N. Bhagwati); State of Karnataka v. B.A.
Hasanabha, A.I.R. 1998 Kant. 210, 3,4 (Chief Justice R.P. Sethi); Sat pal & Co. v. Lt. Governor of
Delhi, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1550, 3 (Justice D.A. Desai); Gurudevdatta VKSSS Maryadit v. State of
Maharashtra, A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 1980, 12 (Justice U.C. Banerjee).
10
T. Venkata Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 724, 15 (Chief Justice Y.V.
Chandrachud).
3
3.
The mere fact that the Parliament was prorogued only few days before making
the Ordinance would not be an evidence of mala fide11. The Ordinance is
completely valid as it doesnt transgress the constitutional limits of the power12.
Moreover, it is not a colourable use of power as the President was competent to
bring such law that, he feels, is in the national interest.13 An Ordinance can make
a validating law, just as Parliament could do.14 Such an Ordinance cannot as
such be condemned as colourable legislation.15 The reason is that by virtue of
words shall have the same force and effect as an Act in Article 123, whatever
could be achieved by regular legislation by the legislature, can be achieved by
an Ordinance.16
4.
The Ordinance that has been promulgated has to be laid before both the Houses
of Parliament as soon as the parliament comes back in session
17
. If the
legislature finds that this Ordinance is not required, then it will automatically
get lapsed. But if the Honble Supreme Court strikes down the Ordinance now,
then there would be a conflict between the Legislature and the Judiciary if the
Legislature comes up with an act in this regard later. It is submitted that it should
be left to the representatives of people to decide on the matter. If an Act is made
in this regard and afterwards, if it is found to be arbitrary, then its constitutional
validity can be challenged before this Honble Supreme Court. It is submitted
that Rule 71 (1)18 of the House of People emphasizes on the above said
suggestion.
5.
It is also argued that since the entire session of the Parliament was washed out,
there was a necessity to promulgate the Ordinance. The action of the President
is justified and cannot be termed as misuse of power. The Presidents power is
hedged in by limitations and conditions and although the power may appear to
11
State of Punjab v. Satya Pal Dang, A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 903, 14 (Chief Justice M. Hidyatullah);
Gurudevdatta VKSSS Maryadit v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 1980, 18 (Justice U.C.
Banerjee).
12
T. Venkata Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 724, 14 (Chief Justice Y.V.
Chandrachud).
13
D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 579, (Justice P.N. Bhagwati) .
14
State of Orissa v. Bhupendra, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 945, 21 (Justice P.B. Gajendragadkar).
15
Sat Pal v. Governor, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1550, 16 (Justice D.A. Desai).
16
Supra note 14/.
17
Pammu Const. art 123, cl. 2, sub cl. a.
18
HOUSE OF PEOPLE RULES, Rule 71, cl. 1.
be undemocratic, it is not so, as the Executive is answerable to the Legislature

and if an Ordinance is promulgated in misuse of power, abuse of power, the
Legislature can pass a resolution disapproving the Ordinance and also a vote of
no confidence in the executive.19
6.
Therefore, the counsel humbly submits that the Honble Supreme Court should
not strike down the act as of now, and should wait for the Legislature to act
upon it first as soon as the parliament is back in session. The counsel submits
that it is a premature litigation and requests the court to let it take its due course
of time.
B.
7.
THE ORDINANCE IS NOT IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14.
It is submitted that the Ordinance is not infringing upon the Article 14 of the
Petitioner. 20 Right to contest elections is a statutory right, and not a fundamental
right21, given by the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951. The right to make
law to add any qualification is given to the state by the Constitution22.
8.
The restriction imposed is a reasonable one. There is an intelligible differentia

present in this case. The classification has been done on the basis of a reasonable
factor i.e. education. This factor is so important that it has been internationally
acclaimed. Article 2623 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
specifically emphasizes on providing education. The two classes made here are:
Educated people who aspire to become MPs, and uneducated people who aspire
to become MPs.
9.
The object sought to be achieved by the government is to ensure better political

scenario in the country so that more efficient & effective laws can be formed.
There is a rational nexus between the restriction imposed and the object sought
to be achieved. The idea is also to promote education into the public because
the state believes that those who lead must lead by an example.24
19
R.K. Garg v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 2138, 6 (Justice P.N. Bhagwati).
21
Infra note 24, 6 (Justice R.C. Lahoti).
22
PAMMU CONST. art. 84, cl. c.
23
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, art. 26.
24
Javed and Ors. v. State of Haryana, A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 3057, 38 (Justice R.C. Lahoti); Dulari Devi &
Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. A.I.R. 2015 Raj. 84, 23 (Chief Justice Sunil Ambwani).
20
10.
During the Constituent Assembly Debates of India, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, along
with Dr. B.R. Ambedkar emphasized on having educational qualification for
MPs. They believed that likewise Judiciary and Executive, Legislature should
also have such qualifications.25
11.
The basic intention of the government behind putting this educational

qualification is to ensure that all the MPs are at least aware of the demographics,
geography, history, political structure, etc. of the country so that they can easily
formulate their opinion on varied laws that they come across in the parliament.
Moreover, the government believes that it is a progressive reform aimed
towards increasing the standards of education in the state.26
12.
Therefore, the respondents humbly submit that the Ordinance is in consonance

with Article 14 as there is a rational classification having nexus with object
sought to be achieved.
II.
THE TELECOM ORDER
ONLY
TARGETING
THE
WEBSITES
PROMOTING
REVENGE PORN IS VALID.

13.
It is submitted before the Honble Supreme Court that the Telecom Order
controlling free and open access to 900 websites promoting revenge porn is
valid. The argument put forward to support the above contention is three fold:
firstly, the ban on sites promoting revenge porn does not violate Article 14
[A], secondly, it falls within the reasonable restriction as enshrined in Article
19(2) [B] and thirdly, the provisions of the IT Act, 2008 empower the
government to ban such websites. [C]
A.
THE BAN ON SITES PROMOTING REVENGE PORN DOES NOT VIOLATE

ARTICLE 14.
14.
Article 1427 commands the State not to deny to any person the equality before
law and the equal protection of laws. However, there is no absolute equality
among the human beings and reasonable classification can be done.28 The
25
CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY DEBATES, Vol. VIII, Pg. 89.

Moot Proposition, 3.
27
PAMMU CONST. art.14: Equality before law.
28
Champakam Dorairajan v. State of Madras, A.I.R. 1951 Mad. 120, 32 (Chief Justice P.V.
Rajamannar).
26
classification, in order to be valid, has to pass the test of permissible

classification i.e.: (i) it must have been founded on intelligible differentia which
distinguishes persons or things grouped together from others who are left out
from that group and (ii) that differentia must have a rational relation to the object
sought to be achieved by the statute in question.29
15.
It is submitted that the classification between revenge porn and other porn is
based on intelligible differentia. Revenge porn, typically, consists of sexually
explicit photos or videos that are uploaded on the internet by the intimate
partners, without the permission of the individuals depicted in them which may
sometimes be accompanied with identifying information such as names, address
and other details of the victim30. A majority of the victims of revenge porn are
girls and women31 who are subjected to emotional stress and anxiety32.
16.
Traditional porn is different from revenge porn since it is created with the help
of professional models who perform for the sexual visual gratification of the
viewers. It is created with the motive of monetary benefit both for the creator
and the distributor33. Hence, an element of consent is present in traditional porn.
17.
In R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu34, Supreme Court held that none can
publish anything which affects his privacy without his consent whether truthful
or otherwise. Revenge porn affects the right to privacy35 of victim since it is
uploaded without the permission of the victim. They are in bad taste, disrespect
women and are against the cultural tenets of Pammu. The sites promoting
revenge porn are more dangerous as compared to the sites which show other
pornographic videos and for the purpose of public safety, the classification of
29
Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar, A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 538, 16 (Chief Justice Sudhi Ranjan
Das) .
30
Calvert, Clay. Revenge Porn and Freedom of Expression: Legislative Pushback to an Online Weapon
of Emotional and Reputational Destruction. Ford Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. LJ 24 (2013):673 ; Franks,
Mary Anne Combating Non-Consensual Pornography: A Working Paper, (working paper,
University of Miami Law School, Coral Gables, FL, September 18, 2013).
31
Power in Numbers, (8th October, 2015, 5:36 PM), www.endrevengeporn.org/revenge-porninfographic/.
32
Citron, Danielle Keats and Franks, Mary Anne, Criminalizing Revenge Porn (May 19, 2014). Wake
Forest Law Review, Vol. 49, 2014, p. 345; U of Maryland Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2014-1.
33
Halder, Debarati, and K. Jaishankar. Revenge Porn by Teens in United States and India: A SocioLegal Analysis. International Annals of Criminology, 51.1-2(2013):85-111.
34
R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 S.C.C. 632, 28 (Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy).
35
PAMMU CONST. art. 21 : Protection of life and personal liberty.
an area into dangerously disturbed area and other area is based on intelligible
differentia.36
18.
The Telecom Order has imposed a ban on these sites on the basis of the
representations received by it.
37
The recommendations have not been made
public in order to comply with Rule 16 of the IT Rules, 2009 38 which states that
strict confidentiality should be maintained. The State has not imposed a blanket
ban since other pornographic websites are still in function. The action taken by
the State cannot be regarded as an arbitrary action since the ban imposed is just,
fair and reasonable. Therefore, the contention of the Petitioners that the Order
violates Article 14, stands negated.
B.
THE BAN FALLS WITHIN
THE
REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS
AS
ENSHRINED IN ARTICLE 19(2) OF THE CONSTITUTION.

19.
Article 19(1) (a)39 gives its citizen the freedom to speech and expression,
however, Article 19(2) allows the State to impose reasonable restriction on the
exercise of this freedom in the interest of public decency and morality40. Article
10(1)41 of ECHR provides that everybody has the right to freedom of speech
and expression. However, the exercise of such rights can be restricted for the
protection of health or morals or for the protection of the reputation or the rights
of others.42
20.
It is most humbly submitted that the telecom order controlling the open and free
access to sites promoting revenge porn is valid since revenge porn is obscene
and is offensive to public decency and morality. Therefore, banning such sites
comes within the reasonable restriction as enshrined in clause (2) of Article 19.
i.
Revenge porn undermines decency and morality and can be regarded as

obscene.
36
Gopi Chand v. Delhi Administration, A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 609, 11 (Justice P.B. Gajendragadkar).
38
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (PROCEDURE AND SAFEGUARDS FOR BLOCKING FOR ACCESS OF
INFORMATION BY PUBLIC) RULES, 2009 Rule 16.
39
PAMMU CONST. art.19, cl. 1, sub cl. (a): freedom of speech and expression.
40
K.Venu v. Director-General of Police. A.I.R. 1990 Ker.344, 3 (Justice Chettur Sankaran Nair).
41
EUROPEAN CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHT AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOM,
Article 10 (1).
42
EUROPEAN CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHT AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOM,
Article 10 (2).
37
21.
In order to determine whether a particular publication is obscene and is likely

to undermine the decency43 and morality44, regards must be given to the
probable effects it may have upon the audience to which it is addressed.45
Therefore, various aspects like the age, culture and the like of the audience
should be considered while determining the obscenity of a particular
publication.46
22.
In Director General, Directorate of Doordarshan v. Anand Patwardhan47, the

Supreme Court laid down the broad principles to determine or to judge
obscenity - (a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community
standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient
interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way,
sexual conduct specially defined by the applicable State law; and (c) whether
the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific
value.
23.
Revenge porn consists of sexually explicit videos and pictures which are
uploaded by the intimate partners without the consent of the person so featured
in the video or the photograph. Such videos are gross, appeal to the prurient
interest of the people and tend to corrupt the mind of the viewers. They are
uploaded with the sole purpose of depicting sexual activities of a person in an
offensive way and lack any literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
Revenge porn, therefore, can be regarded as obscene.
ii.
24.
Revenge porn affects the dignity of the women.
The Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 prohibits

indecent representation48 of women through advertisements or publications,
writings, paintings, figures or in any other manner. Any non-consensual
dissemination of images or videos depicting private acts of a woman is an
43
Knuller v. DPP, (1972) 2 All. E.R. 898; R v. Stanley, (1969) 1 All. E.R. 1035.
Brir Gopal v State of MP, A.I.R. 1979 M.P. 173, 15 (Chief Justice G.P. Singh).
45
Ranjit vs Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 88 (885), 22 (Justice M. Hidyatullah).
46
Bobby Art International v. Om Pal Singh Hoon, A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 1846, 22 (Justice S.P. Bharuda);
Rajani v. State, A.I.R. 1958 All. 360.
47
Director General, Directorate of Doordarshan v. Anand Patwardhan, A.I.R. 2006 S.C. 3346, 14
(Justice A.R. Lakshmanan).
48
THE INDECENT REPRESENTATION OF WOMEN (PROHIBITION) ACT, 1986, 2(c).
44
offence under Section 354 C49 of the Pammu Penal Code. Section 66 E50 of the
IT Act, 2008 prescribes punishment for infringing the privacy of a person by
publishing or transmitting any image of any private area of any person.
25.
Pammu, being a country with rich cultural heritage, has always taken every
possible step to protect and preserve the dignity of women. In Chandra Raja
Kumari v. Police Commissioner, Hyderabad
51
the Hon'ble High Court of
Andhra Pradesh held that any act which tends to offend the dignity of a woman
or deal with her indecently in the circumstances amounting to indecent
representation in any form, is bound to offend Article 21 as right to live includes
right to live with dignity and decency. Transmission of revenge porn affects the
fundamental right of the women to live with dignity as enshrined in Article 21
of the Constitution. In New York vs. Ferber52 , the Court held that it is necessary
to shut down the distribution network of child pornography to reduce the
sexual exploitation of children. Therefore, the present ban on the sites
promoting revenge porn has been imposed in order to take away the platform
through which any harm can be caused to the dignity of the woman.
iii.
26.
The telecom order is a regulation and not extinction
The telecom order advising the ISPs to control the free and open access to 900
sites is merely a regulation and not an extinction of the freedom to access
the pornographic websites.
Regulation and not extinction is, generally
speaking, the extent to which permissible restriction may go in order to satisfy

the test of reasonableness.53 The impugned Order targets only those websites
which promote revenge porn. It cannot be regarded as a total ban. The
government has been considered to be quite tolerant as far as freedom of speech
of the general public is concerned.54 Hence, the intention of the respondents is
not to take away the freedom its citizens but to impose reasonable restriction on
such freedom.
49
PAMMU PENAL CODE, 1860, 354C: Voyeurism.

THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2008, 66E.
51
Chandra Raja Kumari v. Police Commissioner, Hyderabad 1998 (1) A.L.D. 810, 22 (Justice B.R.
Somesekara).
52
New York vs. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982), 13 (Justice White).
53
Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 106, 161 (Justice A.N. Roy).
54
50
C.
THE PROVISIONS
OF THE
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2008
EMPOWER THE GOVERNMENT TO BAN SUCH WEBSITES.

27.
The telecom order banning the sites promoting revenge porn has been enacted
by the virtue of Section 79(3) (b) of the IT Act, 2008. Section 7955 exempts the
ISPs from the culpability of any offensive content uploaded by a third party.
However, Section 79(3) (b)56 places an obligation upon the ISPs to act with due
diligence and in accordance with the orders given by the court or the
government. The IT Rules, 201157 mandates that the ISPs to duly inform the
users of the computer resources not to upload, promote, publish or display any
information which is grossly harmful, blasphemous defamatory, obscene,
pornographic, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically
objectionable in nature.
28.
Section 79(3)(b) empowers the government to issue any order to the

intermediaries in relation to any content which in being uploaded by the third
parties. Since the content of the revenge porn videos is such that due diligence
is required on part of the intermediaries, the impugned telecom order regulating
the free access of the 900 websites falls within the provisions of the IT Act,2008
and is therefore, valid. Thus, the argument of the Petitioners that the Order is
not valid stands negated.
III.
THE GAUVANSH SANRAKSHAN
AND
GAUSAMVARDHAN ACT, 2015
IS
CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID.
29.
The counsel most humbly submits before this Honble Court that the Gauvansh
Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015 is constitutionally valid as it is not
in conflict with any of the provisions of constitution, rather it is in furtherance
to the implementation of the provisions of the Constitution. The argument put
forth to support this contention is twofold:
firstly, the impugned Act is
implemented for the advancement of DPSP [A] and secondly, it is not violative
of fundament right of the citizens given in Part III of the Constitution.[B]
55
IT Act, 2008, 79.

IT ACT, 2008, 79(3).
57
THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (INTERMEDIARY GUIDELINE) RULES, 2011, Rule 3.
56
A.
THE IMPUGNED ACT IS IN FURTHERANCE OF DPSP GIVEN IN PART IV

OF THE CONSTITUTION.
30.
It is submitted that the Government, enacting this law has acted in bona fide
manner to ban the slaughter of cows, bulls and bullocks for the preservation,
protection and improvement of agricultural and animal husbandry. This
impugned Act is in furtherance to the implementation of DPSP under Article
4858 and 48-A59.
31.
Article 48 expressly states that the state shall take steps for the improving and
preserving the breeds and prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves and other
milch and draught animals. Art. 48-A provides for the protection and
improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wild life. Both
these articles are inter-related as they aim towards protecting the environment
as a whole. The Honble Supreme Court of India, in State of Gujarat v.
Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat60, emphasized on several uses that the
cow and her progeny provide towards the environment.
32.
The cow and her progeny sustain the health of the nation by nourishing them
with milk, which is a crucial component in a scientifically balanced diet. The
bullocks are indispensable for our agriculture for the supply power than any
other animal. The working bullocks are often useful in ploughing the fields,
drawl of water from the wells and also very useful for drawing carts for
transporting grains and fodders by farmers. The dung of the animal is cheaper
than the artificial manures and extremely useful for production of bio-gas.61
Therefore, the protection under Article 48 also extends to cattle which at one
time were milch or draught but which have ceased to be such. 62 It is submitted
that imposing a total ban on the slaughter of even old and cattle unfit for
agriculture is valid and comes within the ambit of Article 48.
58
PAMMU CONST. art.48.

PAMMU CONST. art.48A.
60
State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat and Ors., A.I.R. 2006 S.C. 212, 37 (Chief
Justice R.C. Lahoti).
61
Id.
62
Akhil Bharat Gosewa Sangh v. State of A.P. and Ors., 2006 (2) A.C.R. 1289 (S.C.), 90 (Justice
Tarun Chatterjee).
59
10
33.
The Directive Principles of State of Policy encompassed in Part IV and

Fundamental Rights in Part III are supplementary to each other63 and are basic
structure of the Constitution64, reading them independently would render them
incomplete and thereby inaccessible65. It has been held that these provisions
were embedded in constitution to facilitate progress66, as and when required
according to time and circumstances67. The same was intended by the preamble
and therefore it would be fallacious to assume that Constitution provided only
for rights and not duties68. This Honble Court in Keshvananda Bharti v. State
of Kerala69, observed that the directive principles were in harmony with the
countrys aims and objective and the fundamental rights could be restricted to
meet the needs of the hour provided that the Part III and Part IV are
harmoniously construed.
34.
It is submitted that by incorporating Clause (g) in Article 51-A70 and giving it

the status of a fundamental duty71, one of the objects sought to be achieved by
the Parliament was to ensure that the spirit and message of Articles 48 and 48A
is honored as a fundamental duty by every citizen. Moreover, Animal Rights
have been also recognized by the Honble Court and it has been observed that
the Right to live in a healthy and clean atmosphere and right to get protection
from human beings against inflicting unnecessary pain or suffering is a right
guaranteed to the animals under Sections 3 and 11 of the PCA Act72 read with
Article 51A (g) of the Constitution.
35.
Right to get food, shelter is also guaranteed under Sections 3 and 11 of the PCA
Act73 and the Rules framed thereunder, especially when they are domesticated.
Right to dignity and fair treatment is, therefore, not confined to human beings
63
Chandra Bhawan Boarding and Lodging Bangalore v. State of Mysore, (1969) 3 S.C.C. 84, 13
(Justice K.S. Hegde).
64
Minerval Mills Ltd. V. Union of India, (1980) 2 S.C.C. 591, 62 (Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud).
65
Id.
66
Supra note 63, 13 (Justice K.S. Hegde).
67
State of Tamil Nadu v. L. Abu Kavier Bai, A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 326, 10 (Justice S. Murtaz Fazal Ali).
68
Supra note 63, 13 (Justice K.S. Hegde).
69
Keshvananda Bharti v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 S.C.C. 225, 1714 (Justice S.M. Sikri).
70
PAMMU CONST. art.51A, cl. (g).
71
PAMMU CONST., The Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976.
72
THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT, 1960
73
Id.
11
alone, but to animals as well74. The impugned Act has been enacted in order to
comply with the provisions of the PCA Act75 and to ensure that the rights of the
animals are not infringed. Moreover, along with the prevention of slaughtering,
the Government has also emphasized on the housing, food and health of the
cattle through some of the provisions in the Act. The provisions ensure that the
cattle eats good quality of fodder and lives in spacious & ventilated areas. It is
thus argued that, the Government is fair in implementing the DPSP which
ultimately leads to a better life for cattle.
B.
THE IMPUGNED ACT IS NOT VIOLATIVE OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF

THE CITIZENS.
(i) The Act is not violative of Article 14.

36.
Article 1476 assures the citizens equality before law and equal protection of law.
In a society, varying needs of different classes of persons often require separate
treatment.77 So, the State can differentiate between two classes but the
classification needs to be reasonable. In order to check the reasonableness of
the classification, the twin test is laid down by the court
(i) The classification must be based on an intelligible differentia which
distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of
group;
(ii) The differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be
achieved by the act.78
37.
The classification made by the impugned Act is between the butchers who are
involved in slaughtering of cows, bulls and bullocks and the butchers who are
involved in the slaughtering of other animals. The object which is sought to be
74
Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraj and Ors., 2014 (4) A.B.R. 556, 62 (Justice Panicker
Radhakrishnan).
75
Supra note 65.
76
PAMMU CONST. art.14.
77
Dhirendra v. Legal Remembrancer , 1955 1 S.C.R. 224, 16 (Justice M.C. Mahajan); Chiranjit Lal v.
Union of India ,1950 S.C.R. 869, 88 (Justice S.K. Das); State of Bombay v. Balsara, 1951 S.C.R.
682, 38 (Justice Saiyid Fazl Ali); State of M.P. v. Bhopal Sugar Industries, A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1179,
6 (Justice J.C. Shah).
78
K. Thimmappa v. Chairman Central Board of Directors SBI, A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 467, 3 (Justice G.B.
Patnaik).
12
achieved by the Impugned Act is the protection, preservation and improvement

of agriculture and animal husbandry by the virtue of DPSP, particularly Article
37, Article 39(b) & (c), 48 and 48-A. The classification between the butchers
was held to be a reasonable classification by Honble court.79 The classification
has a strong nexus with the object sought to be achieved because in order to
preserve and improve the agriculture and animal husbandry, protection of cattle
useful for the agriculture also needs to be protected. The Honble Supreme
Court, while dealing with the ban on slaughter of cow and her progeny, in Mohd.
Hanif Qureshi and Ors.., v. State of Bihar80, observed that:
"The attainment of these objectives may well necessitate that the slaughterers
of cattle should be dealt with more stringently than the slaughterers of, say,
goats and sheep. The impugned Acts, therefore, have adopted a classification
on sound and intelligible basis and can quite clearly stand the test laid down in
the decisions of this Court. Whatever objections there may be against the
validity of the impugned Acts the denial of equal protection of the laws does not,
prima facie, appear to us to be one of them.
38.
The classification has a strong nexus with the object sought to be achieved
because in order to preserve and improve the agriculture and animal husbandry,
protection of cattle useful for the agriculture also needs to be protected.
Therefore, the impugned Act does not violate Article 14.
(ii) The Act is not in violation of Article 19(1) (g).
39.
The impugned Act is also not violative of Article 19(1) (g)81 as the right under
the said article is not absolute and subject to reasonable restrictions under Art.
19(6)82, on the grounds of public interest, etc. It is submitted that the restriction
imposed by the impugned act is reasonable because it is not total prohibition on
79
Municipal Corpn. Ahmedabad v. Jan Mohamed Usman Bhai, (1986) 3 S.C.C. 20, 24 (Justice R.B.
Mishra); Haji Usman Bhai Hasan Bhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 1213, 21 (R.B.
Mishra); State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat and Ors. , A.I.R. 2006 S.C. 212,
15 (Chief Justice R.C. Lahoti).
80
Mohd. Hanif Qureshi and Ors.., v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 731, 23 (Chief Justice Sudhi
Ranjan Das).
81
PAMMU CONST. art.19, cl. 1, sub cl. (g).
82
PAMMU CONST. art.19, cl. 6.
13
the activities of butchers, they can slaughter other animals in order to exercise
their right under Article 19.83 In so far as the trade in hides, skins and other
allied things which are derived from the dead animals are concerned, it is not
necessary that the animals be slaughtered to avail these things 84, it can be
availed after the natural death of animals. It has been held that if any restriction
imposed on fundamental right is because of the implementation of DPSP and is
ancillary to the impugned act, than it has to be considered as a reasonable
restriction in public interest.85
The Honble Supreme court in Municipal
Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and Ors. v. Jan Mohammed Usman Bhai
and Anr.86, expressly stated that:
The expression "in the interests of general public" is of a wide import covering
public order, public health, public security, morals, economic welfare of the
community and the objects mentioned in Part IV of the Constitution.
40.
Further, in State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat87, Honble

court observed that:
In the light of the material available in abundance before us, there is no escape
from the conclusion that the protection conferred by the impugned enactment
on cow progeny is needed in the interest of the nations economy. Merely
because it may cause inconvenience or some dislocation to the butchers,
restriction imposed by the impugned enactment does not cease to be in the
interest of the general public. The former must yield to the latter
41.
The Act has been implemented in order to protect the cow, bulls and bullocks
since they have several uses and help in fostering the economy of the country.
83
Justice R.C. Lahoti); Krishna Kumar v. Municipal Committee of Bhatapara , Petition No. 660 of 1954
decided on 21st February 1957 by Constitution Bench.
84
85
Workmen on Meenakshi Mills Ltd. and Ors. V. Meenakshi Mills Ltd. And Anr., (1992) IILLJ 294
S.C., 27 (Justice S.C. Agarwal); Papnasam Labour Union v. Madura Coats Ltd. and Anr., A.I.R. 1995
S.C. 2200, 21 (Justice G.N. Ray);Indian Handicrafts Emporium v. Union of India A.I.R. 2003 S.C.
3240, 39 (Justice S.B. Sinha); Razakbhai Issakbhai Mansuri and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.,
1993 Supp. (2) S.C.C. 659, 11 (Chief Justice L.M. Sharma); State of Gujarat and Ors. v. Akhil Gujarat
Pravasi and Ors., (2004) 5 S.C.C. 155, 10 (Justice G.P. Mathur);Om Prakash and Ors. v. State of U.P.
and Ors., (2004) 3 S.C.C. 402, 31 (Justice Shivraj P. Patil); State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. v. M/s.
Sanjeetha Trading Co. and Ors., (1993) 1 S.C.C. 236, 19 (Justice N.P. Singh).
86
Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and Ors. V. Jan Mohammed Usman Bhai and Anr.,
[1986] 2 S.C.R. 700, 19 (Justice R.B. Mishra).
87
State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat and Ors.,A.I.R. 2006 S.C. 212, 56 (Chief
14
It has been imposed in the interest of the public. The ban therefore, falls within
the reasonable restrictions as enshrined in Article 19(1) (g) of Constitution and
is valid.
42.
The counsel most humbly submits that the impugned act is not violative of any
fundamental rights of the citizens under Part III of the Constitution of Pammu,
hence is constitutionally valid.
15
PRAYER
PRAYER
Wherefore, in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, the counsels on behalf of the Respondents most humbly pray before this
Honble court to adjudge and declare that:
1. The Representation of Peoples Act (Third Amendment) Ordinance, 2014

is valid as it is not arbitrary in nature and does not affect the right of the
petitioner to contest elections.
2. The Telecom Order targeting the websites prompting revenge porn is
valid.
3. Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act of 2015 is valid.
4. To Dismiss the Petition.
And pass any other order that this Honble Court may deem fit in the interests of
justice, equity and good conscience.
For this act of kindness, the counsel would forever pray before this Honble court.
Date:
____________________
Sd/-
Counsel on behalf of Respondent
XV

R 48

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

R 48

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Team Code: R-48

LEX OMNIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION-2015

IN THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF PAMMU

Writ Petition (s) (Civil) No (s)._______/2015

COMMON CAUSE AND ANR.

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT

PLEADINGS AND AUTHORITIES

I. THE REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLES ACT (THIRD AMENDMENT) ORDINANCE, 2014

B. THE ORDINANCE IS NOT IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION.

B. THE ACT IS NOT VIOLATIVE OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE CITIZENS.-

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT

All India Reporter

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

Sabka Vikaas Party

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT

A.K. Roy v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 710

A.C.R. 1289 (S.C.)

Brir Gopal v. State of MP, A.I.R. 1979 M.P. 173

Champakam Dorairajan v. State of Madras, A.I.R. 1951Mad. 120

Chandra Bhawan Boarding and Lodging Bangalore v. State of

Mysore, (1969) 3 S.C.C. 84

(1) A.L.D. 810

10. Chiranjit Lal v. Union of India, 1950 S.C.R. 869

11. D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 579

12. Dhirendra v. Legal Remembrancer , 1955 1 S.C.R. 224

Director General, Directorate of Doordarshan v. Anand

Patwardhan, A.I.R. 2006 S.C. 3346

15. Gopi Chand v. Delhi Administration, A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 609

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT

Gurudevdatta VKSSS Maryadit v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R.

2001 S.C. 1980

1986 S.C. 1213

20. K. Nagraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 551

K. Thimmappa v. Chairman Central Board of Directors SBI,

A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 467

22. K.Venu v. Director-General of Police. A.I.R. 1990 Ker.344

23. Keshvananda Bharti v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 S.C.C. 225

24. Knuller v. DPP, (1972) 2 All. E.R. 898

Krishna Kumar v. Municipal Committee of Bhatapara , Petition

25. No. 660 of 1954 decided on 21st February 1957 by Constitution

Om Prakash and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., (2004) 3 S.C.C.

28. New York vs. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982)

1995 S.C. 2200

31. R v. Stanley, (1969) 1 All. E.R. 1035

32. R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 S.C.C. 632

33. R.C. Cooper v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 564

34. R.K. Garg v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 2138

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT

35. Rajani v. State, A.I.R. 1958 All. 360

37. Ranjit v. Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 88 (885)

Razakbhai Issakbhai Mansuri and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and

Ors., 1993 Supp (2) S.C.C. 659

40. State of Bombay v. Balsara, 1951 S.C.R. 682

A.I.R. 2006 S.C. 212

43. State of Karnataka v. B.A. Hasanabha, A.I.R. 1998 Kant. 210

45. State of Orissa v. Bhupendra, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 945

47. State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 1361

724: (1985) 3 S.C.C. 198

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT

STATUTES AND RULES CITED:

PAMMU PENAL CODE, 1860

THE CONSTITUTION OF PAMMU, 1950