Moot memorial sample, Study Guides, Projects, Research of Law

Download Moot memorial sample and more Study Guides, Projects, Research Law in PDF only on Docsity!

& JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2019.

Page 1 of 42

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[EXTRAORDINARY ORIGINAL JURISDICTION]

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO……….. OF 2019

A PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FILED UNDER ART 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF FINDIA,

-------IN THE MATTER BETWEEN-------

KISHU RADO, MAA LIELA & ORS …………………PETITIONERS

v. UNION OF FINDIA …………………RESPONDENT UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS LORDSHIP’S COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF FINDIA WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

& JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2019.

Page 3 of 42

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860
2. The Constitution of India , 1950
3. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS
4. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1947 (Adopted on December 10, 1948)
5. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Adopted by United Nations) BOOKS, COMMENTARIES & LEXICONS
   1. Seervai H.M., Constitutional Law Of India, 4th Edition 2002, Volume Universal Book Traders.
   2. Shukla V.N., Constitution Of India 11th Edition 2008, Eastern Book Company.
   3. Jain M.P, Indian Constitutional Law, 6th Edition 2011, Lexisnexis Butterworth Wadhwa Nagpur.
   4. Basu D.D., Constitution Of India 14th Edition 2009, Lexisnexis Butterworth’s Wadhwa Nagpur.
   5. Dr.M.C.Mehanathan, Law on Control of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances in India, 3rd edition, 2015
   6. Chandra Satish, “Indian Evidence Act, 1872”, Allahabad Law Agency, Faridabad, 2012.
   7. Gaur, K.D, “Textbook on Indian Penal Code”, Universal Law Publishing Co, New Delhi, 5 th ED. 2014.
   8. R.P.Kataria, Law Relating to Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances in India, 3rd edition 2010, reprint 2013 (with latest Case-law)
   9. Sharma &Mago, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Laws, 3rd edition, 2016
   10. N.K.Rastogi , An Exhaustive Commentary on The Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act & Rules, 2002
   11. Malik , Law of Juvenile justice in India , 1st edition 2018
   12. Bhattacharya, Sunil K., Juvenile Justice: An Indian Scenario, 2000

& JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2019.

Page 4 of 42

13. Prof. VedKumari, with a foreword by UpendraBaxi, The Juvenile Justice System in India - From Welfare to Rights, 2004 DICTIONARIES
14. Aiyar, Ramanatha P.: “The Law Lexicon”, Wadhwa& Company, 2ndEdn., Nagpur (2002).
15. Black, Henry Campbell: Blacks Law Dictionary ‟6th Edn., Centennial Ed. (1891-1991).
16. Curzon. L. B: “Dictionary Of Law”, Pitman Publishing, 4th Edn., New Delhi (1994).
17. Garner, Bryan A.: “A Dictionary Of Modern Legal Usage”, Oxford University Press 2nd Edn., Oxford (1995).
18. Greenberg, Daniel And Alexandra, Millbrook: “Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary Of Words & Phrases”, Vol. 2, 6th Edn., London: Sweet & Maxwell (2000).
19. Justice Desai, M.C. And Aiyar, Subramanyam: “Law Lexicon & Legal Maxims”, 2nd Edn., Delhi: Delhi Law House (1980).
20. Mitra, B.C. &Moitra, A.C., “Legal Thesarus”, University Book, Allahabad (1997).
21. Moys, Elizabeth M., “Classification & Thesaurus For Legal Material”, 3rd Edn., London: Bowker Saur (1992).
22. Oppe., A.S., “Wharton’s Law Lexicon”, 14th Edn., New Delhi: Sweet & Maxwell (1997).
23. Prem, Daulatram, “Judicial Dictionary”, 1st Edn., Jaipur: Bharat Law Publication (1992)

TABLE OF CASES

19. Central.Elecricity.Supply Utility of Odisha v. Dhobei Sahoo & Ors.,(2013) SCC 1005.
20. Common Cause (A Regd. Society) vs Union Of India & Ors, Writ Petition (civil) 580 of

38. Dr.Subramanian Swamy v. Director, Cbi & Anr, WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 21 OF
39. Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd v. Bombay Environmental Action Group & Ors.,AIR (2006) SC

 - & JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, - Page 2 of 

• INDEX OF AUTHORITIES...................................................................................................................
• TABLE OF CASES…………………………………………………………………………………….
• LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
• STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
• STATEMENT OF BRIEF FACTS
• STATEMENT OF ISSUES
• SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
• ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
  • 1. Whether the instant Public Interest Litigation is maintainable before this Hon’ble Court?
    • 1.1 A. No Public Interest is involved:
    • 1.2 No Fundamental Right has been violated:
  • Infirmities And Are Therefore Ultra Vires The Constitution of Findia? 2. Whether The Sections 8(c) & 27 of the NDPS Act, 1985 Suffer From Any Constitutional
    • 2.1. Art 14 is not breached
    • 2.2. Art 19 (1) (g) is not breached
    • 2.3. No Violation of Art
  • Ultra Vires the Constitution Of Findia? 3. Whether Section 35 of the NDPS Act, 1985, which Attaches A Presumption Of Culpability, Is
    • 3.1. Proper Legislative Competence
    • 3.2. Constitutional Validity of S.
    • 3.3. Article 14 is not violated
    • 3.4. Differential Treatment is not Violative Per se
    • 3.5. Test of Arbitrariness..........................................................................................................
    • 3.6. Presumption of Constitutionality- Doctrine of Legitimacy..............................................
  • Constitution? 4. Whether the consumption of drugs can fall within the protective cover of Art 25 of the Findian
    • 4.1. CORE OF ESSENTIAL RELIGIOUS PRACTICE
    • REGARDED AS ESSENTIAL: 4.2. CONSTITUTION SHOULD BE THE TOUCHSTONE FOR ANY PRACTICE TO BE
    • 4.3. TEST OF RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION
• PRAYER - & JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, - Page 5 of
• 1. A. K. Roy vs Union Of India And Anr, 1982 SCR (2)
• 2. Abdul Rashid vs. State of Gujarat [AIR 2000 SC 821]
• 3. Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam v. Government of Tamil Nadu (2016) 2 SCC
• 4. Ameeroonissa Begum v. Mahboob begum, 1953 SCR 404 (417).......................................
• 5. Ameeroonissa Begum v. Mehboob Begum, 1953 SCR 404(414
• 6. Ameeroonissa v. Mahboob, AIR 1953 SC 951....................................................................
• 7. Anil Verma v. Harish Kumar, Cr. Appeal No.453 of
• 8. Ashok Kumar Pandey v. The State Of West Bengal, (2004) 3 SCC
• 9. Ashok Kumar Pandey v. The State Of West Bengal, (2004) 3 SCC 349.
• 10. Ashok Leyland Ltd. V. Union of India, (1997) 9 SCC
• 11. Babu Ram v. State of U.P(1995) 2 SCC
• 12. Babulal Amthalal Mehta v. Collector of customs, Calcutta, (1957) SCR
• 13. Babulal Amthalal Mehta v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta, AIR 1957 SC 877,
• 14. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India & Others, 1984 SCR (2) 67............................
• 15. Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.230-231 OF
• 16. Board of Trustees v. State of Delhi, AIR 1962 SC
• 17. Board of trustees v. State of Delhi, AIR 1962 SC 458(471)..............................................
• 18. Budhan Chowdry v. State of Bihar, 1955(1) SCR 1045 (1049)
• 20. Chandra Bhawan Boarding and Lodging v. State of Mysore, AIR 1970 SC
• 21. Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti v. State of U.P & Ors.,AIR (1990) SC 2060.........................
• 22. Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. The Union of India And Others, 1950 SCR
• 23. Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri vs The Union Of India 1951 AIR
• 24. Chiranjit Lal v. Union of India. (1950) S.C.R.869
• 25. Chirendra v. Legal Remembrancer, AIR 1954 SC 424.
• 26. Cochin Devaswom Bd. V. Vamana Setti, AIR 1966 SC
• 27. Cochin Devaswom Bd. V. Vamana Setti, AIR 1966 SC
  • 782 - 28. Commissioner of Police v. Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta, (2004) 12 SCC 770,
  • 782 - 29. Commissioner of Police Vs. Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta, (2004) 12 SCC 770,
  • 782 - Commissioner of Police Vs. Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta, (2004) 12 SCC 770,
  • Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, 1954 AIR 282, (1954). 30. Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha
    • & JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION,
      • Page 6 of
• 32. Dargah Committee vs. Syed Hussain Ali , AIR 1961 SC 1402................................... 36,
• 33. Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State Of Maharashtra & Ors.,(2005) 1 SCC
• 34. Dhanapal & Ors vs State By Public Prosecutor, 1985 (1) MLJ (Crl)
• 35. Dharam Dutt & Ors v. Union Of India & Ors, (2004) 1 SCC
• 36. Dlamini; S v. Dladla and others 1999(7) BCLR
• 37. Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India & Ors.,(2004) 3 SCC 363.................................................
• 39. Dr.Surbahmaniam Swamy v. State of Kerala, WP(C).No. 35180 of 2009........................
• 40. Durand Didier v. Chief Secretary, Union Territory of Goa 1989 AIR (1966)
• 42. East India Tobacco Ltd. V. State of A.P., AIR 1962 SC
  • [1981] 1 SCC 568................................................................................................................. 43. Fertiliser Corporation Kamgar Union (Regd.), Sindri and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors,
• 44. Gian Singh v. State Of Punjab & Anr, (2012) 10 SCC 303..............................................
• 45. Gopi chand v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1959 Supp. (2) SCR 87...................................
• 46. Government of Andhra Pradesh &Ors. V. Smt. P. Laxmi Devi,(2008) 4 SCC 720.
• 47. Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India (2018) 8 SCALE
• 48. Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank Ltd v. United Yarn Tex (P) Ltd Appeal (civil)
  • of 2004..................................................................................................................................
• 49. Hanif v. State of Bihar, AIR 1958 SC
• 50. Har Shankar & Ors. v. The Dy. Excise & Taxation Commr, 1975 SCR (3)
• 51. Harakchand Ratanchand Banthia v. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC
• 52. Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto & Ors.,(2010) 9 SCC 655.
• 53. Harnam Singh v. R.T.A, 1954 SCR
• 54. Harnam Singh v. R.T.A., 1954 SCR
• 55. Hinsa Virodhak Sangh v. Mirzapur Moti Kuresh Jamat & Ors. [(2008) 5 SCC 33]
• 56. Holicow Pictures Pvt.Ltd v. Prem Chandra Mishra & Ors.,AIR (2008) SC
  • (Civil) No. 373 of 57. Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. v. State Of Kerala & Ors., Writ Petition
• 58. IndraSawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477.
• 59. Jagdish Negi v. State Of U.P. And Anr, (1997 (7) SCC 203)
• 60. Janata Dal v. H.S. Choudhary, (1992) (4) SCC
• 61. Justice K.S. Puttasamy (Retd) V. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC
• 62. K. Veeraswamy v. Union of India, [1991] Insc
• 63. Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel vs. Union of India & Ors. [(1995) 4 SCC
• 64. Kansing Kalusing Thakore & Ors.v. Rabari Maganbhai Vashrambhai, (2006) 9 SCR
• 65. Kazi Lhendup Dorji v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (1994) 3 SCR 201.....................
• 66. Kedar Nath Bajoria And Anr v. The State Of West Bengal , AIR 1954 SC
• 67. Kedar Nath Bajoria v. State of W.B., AIR 1953 SC
• 68. Kewal singh v. Lajwanti, AIR 1980 SC
• 69. Krishna A.S v. State of Madras, 1957 SCR 399 (414)
      • & JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION,
        • Page 7 of
• 70. Krishna Swami v. Union of India, (1992) 4 SCC 605.
• 71. Kumar Mukherjee v. Local Board of Barpeta, AIR 1965 SC
• 72. Kushum Lata v. Union of India & Ors., AIR (2006) SC
• 73. LaxmiKhandsari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1981) 2 SCC
• 74. M.G. Badappanavar v. State of Karnataka, (2001) 2 SCC
• 75. M/S Swastik Gases P.Ltd vs Indian Oil Corp.Ltd, [2013] 7 S.C.R.
• 76. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Anr. (1978) 1 SCC
• 77. Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur V. Punjab State Electricity Board. & ors., (2010)
  • SCC
• 78. N. Adithayan v. Travancore Devaswom Board and others, (2002) 8 SCC
• 79. N. Adithayan v. Travancore Devaswom Board and others, (2002) 8 SCC 106.
• 80. Namit Sharma v. Union of India, (2013) 1 SCC 745.........................................................
• 81. Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar & Ors. v. State Of Maharashtra, AIR (1967) SC
• 82. National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, AIR 2014 SC
• 83. Neetu v. State of Punjab & Ors., AIR (2007) SC
• 84. Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State Of Punjab & Ors, (2009) 1 SCC 441.................................
• 85. Noor Aga vs State Of Punjab &Anr, (2008) 16 SCC
• 86. P.N. Krishna Lal v. Govt. of Kerala, 1995 Supp (2) SCC
• 87. P.Seshadri v. S.Mangati Gopal Reddy & Ors.,(2011) 5 SCC
• 88. Pannalal Bansilal Pitti v. State of A.P., (1996) 2 SCC
• 89. Parayankandiyal Erkavath Kanapravan Kalliani Amma v. K. Devi, (1996) 4 SCC
• 90. Pathumma v. State of Kerala, AIR 1978 SC 771;..............................................................
• 91. People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India & Others, AIR (1982) SC
• 92. Piyush Kantilal Mehta v. Commissioner Of Police, 1988 SCR Supl. (3)1081
• 93. Prabu das Morarjee Rajkotia v. Union of India, AIR 1966 SC
• 94. Prabu Das Morarjee Rajkotia v. Union of India, AIR 1966 SC
• 95. R.K. Garg v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC
• 96. Raj Kumar v. UOI AIR
• 97. Raja Bira Kishore Deb v. State of Orissa(1964) 7 SCR
• 98. Rajasthan v. Shankar LalParmar, AIR 2012 SC
• 99. Rajbala & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors writ petition (civil) no. 671 of
• 100. Rajiv Ranjan Singh Lalan & Anr v. Union of India & Ors.,(2006) 6 SCC
  • 2013)..................................................................................................................................... 101. Rajpal Sharma And Others vs State Of U.P.Thru Principal (WRIT - A No. - 5731 of
• 102. Ram Krishna Dalmia v. State of Bihar,AIR 1958 SC 53.................................................
• 103. Ramnath Verma v. State of Rajasthan , AIR 1967 SC
• 104. Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State Of Maharashtra, 1965 SCR (1)
• 105. Ranju Gopal Mukherjee & Anr. v. State Of West Bengal & Ors.,W.P 441 of 2018.......
• 106. Ratilal Panachand Gandhi Vs. State Of Bombay (1954) SCR
• 107. Raunaq International ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd., (1999) 1 SCC
• 108. Ritu Prasad Sharma v. State of Assam, (2015) 9 SCC
• 109. Rohit bhai J Patel v. The State of Gujarat, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 508 OF
• 110. Roy Romer, Governor of Colorado. v. Richard G. Evans, 517 U.S.

  - & JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, - Page 8 of 

• 111. Royappa E.P v. State of T.N., AIR 1974 SC
• 112. S.P Gupta v. Union of India, AIR (1982) SC
• 113. S.P Mittal v. Union of India, 1983 SCR (1) 729, (1983)
• 114. Salabiaku v. Grance [1988] 13 ECHRR 379 at
• 115. Sardar Syadna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. The State of Bombay 1962 AIR
• 116. Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay [1962] Suppl. 2 SCR
• 117. Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. The State of Bombay, 1962 AIR
• 118. Sharma Transport v. Government of A.P(2002) 2 SCC 188.
  • 3 SCR 242 : AIR 1966 SC 119. Shastri Yagnapurushadiji and others v. Muldas Bhundardas Vaishya and another (1966)
• 120. Shyara Bano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1.
• 121. Smt. Angoori Devi For Ram Ratan vs Union Of India & Ors, 1989 AIR
• 122. Smt. Sunita Bugga vs Director Of Education And Others2010 (7) AD (Del)
• 123. State of A. P. &Ors. v. McDowell & Co. &Ors [(1996) 3 SCC 709]..............................
• 124. State of A. P. &Ors. v. McDowell & Co. &Or s [(1996) 3 SCC
• 125. State of A.P. v. McDowell (1996) 3 SCC
• 126. State of A.P. v. McDowell ( 1996) 3 SCC
• 127. State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr vs Nalla Raja Reddy & Ors, 1967 SCR (3)
• 128. State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Challa Ramkrishna Reddy & Ors, (2000) 5 SCC
• 129. State of Bihar v. Bihar Distillery Ltd., (1997) 2 SCC 453...............................................
• 130. State of Bombay v. Balsara F.N 1951 SCR
• 131. State Of Kerala & Anr v. N. M. Thomas & Ors, 1976 SCR (1)
  • 2001. 132. State of Kerala v. Peoples Union for civil Liberties. Civil Appeals Nos. 104-105 of
• 133. State of Punjab & Ors v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga JT 1997 (1) SC
• 134. State of Uttranchal v. Balwanth Singh Chaufal, (2010) 3 SCC
• 135. State ofU.P v. Kartar Singh, AIR 1964 SC
• 136. Syed Md. V. State of Andhra, 1954 SCR
• 137. T.M.A .Pai Foundation and Ors. v. State Of Karnataka and Ors, AIR 2003 SC
  • of Shirur Mutt, AIR 1954 SC 282 35, 138. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Swamiar
• 139. The State of Gujarat & Anr., v. Shri Ambica Mills Ltd., AIR (1974) SC 1300.
• 140. The State of West Bengal V. Anwar All Sarkarhabib Mohamed, [1952] INSC
• 141. Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1963 SC
• 142. Tilokchand Motichand & Ors. v. H.B. Munshi & Anr., AIR (1979) SC 898..................
• 143. V.S. Rice and Oil Mills v. State of A.P., AIR 1964 SC 1781..........................................
• 144. Vivian Joseh Ferreira & Anr vs Municipal Corporation, 1972 SCR (2)

& JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2019.

Page 9 of 42

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& : And § : Section ¶ : Paragraph AIR : All India Report Anr : Another All : Allahabad AP : Andhra Pradesh Art. : Article Bom : Bombay Cal : Calcutta Del : Delhi Act : Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Edn : Edition Govt : Government HC : High Court ICCPR : International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights IT Act : Information Technology Act Kar : Karnataka Ltd : Limited Ors : Others PIL : Public Interest Litigation S. : Section SC : Supreme Court SCC : Supreme Court Cases SLP : Special Leave Petition u/s : Under Section UDHR : United Nations Declaration of Human Rights

& JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2019.

Page 10 of 42 UOI : Union of India US : United States UK : United Kingdom v : versus

& JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2019.

Page 11 of 42

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioners have approached this Hon’ble Supreme Court of Findia under Art 32 of the Findian Constitution, 1950^1 , through a Public Interest Litigation. The Respondent reserves the right to contest the maintainability of the present litigation. (^1) 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 clause ( 1 ) and ( 2 ), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause ( 2 ) (4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution

& JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2019.

Page 12 of 42

STATEMENT OF BRIEF FACTS

About the Country: (i) Union of Findia is a unique entity following the Centre-biased form of a federation with morality and cultural norms influencing the state and where all the socio-cultural and religious sects have one common aspect– the use of recreational drugs. Noticing this, the Parliament of Findia brought in the NDPS Act in 1985. The Cult: (ii) Since 1950s, there existed a religious cult in the State of Maharashtra headed by Kishu Roado which believed in attaining the state of nirvana by a “technique of transformation”. The cult took pride in defying societal norms and appealed to the humans to live authentically without shunning themselves from the natural joyful experiences. The cult indulges in practices contravening the law; propagate immoral behaviors including promiscuity and usage of certain substances to attain nirvana. The Issue: (iii) Barty Junior, a law student, came in contact with an active member of the cult called Maa Liela through social media who promised to guide him to attain nirvana. Upon her persistence, Barty met Kishu at her residence on May 2019 to start the process. Impressed by the views, he visited Maa Liela’s residence on 11.06.19 and decided to meet on 25.06.19 for the next session. On 23rd June, the police received an anonymous tip relating to the usage of drugs at the residence of Maa Liela. Consumption of Drugs: (iv) On 25.06.19, Barty arrived at her residence at around 9:00 am and they began the session at around 9:30 am. Maa Liela offered Barty a brownish white powder called “essence of heaven” in order to help him focus on his mediation. At first, he was hesitant, but at Kishu’s persistence, Barty consumed the powder. At 10.15 am, PI Kiran Desai along with his raiding unit arrived at the residence. (v) On entering, they saw Barty, Kishu and Maa Liela sitting on the floor and saw lines of brownish white powder on the dining table and an open packet which they suspected to be

& JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2019.

Page 13 of 42 heroin, an addictive substance. Maa Liela said that the powder was used for meditation. They also came across a brief case on the 1st floor of the house with 2 packets of the similar powder which were seized, sealed and sent for chemical analysis. The trio was arrested complying with the due procedure specified under the NDPS Act, 1985. Charges were framed against the three of them under the Act. Filing of PIL: (vi) Aggrieved, Kishu and Maa Liela took the defense of Right to Privacy as the activities were within the four corners of their house, didn’t disturb any third person and hence the State has no right to interfere. They filed a PIL in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Findia challenging to constitutionality of S.27 of the NDPS Act along with several other petitions challenging various other provisions. The petitions were clubbed to be heard together. They also prayed for a stay on the trial till the Supreme Court decided on the said PIL. However, the Supreme Court allowed the trial to proceed on its own accord.

& JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2019.

Page 14 of 42

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. WHETHER THE INSTANT PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IS MAINTAINABLE

BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT?

2. WHETHER THE SECTIONS 8(C) & 27 OF THE NDPS ACT, 1985 SUFFER FROM

ANY CONSTITUTIONAL INFIRMITIES AND ARE THEREFORE ULTRA VIRES THE

CONSTITUTION OF FINDIA?

3. WHETHER SECTION 35 OF THE NDPS ACT, 1985 WHICH ATTACHES A

PRESUMPTION OF CULPABILITY, IS ULTRA VIRES THE CONSTITUTION OF

FINDIA?

4. WHETHER THE CONSUMPTION OF DRUGS CAN FALL WITHIN THE PROTECTIVE

COVER OF ARTICLE 25?

& JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2019.

Page 15 of 42

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. WHETHER THE INSTANT PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE

THIS HON’BLE COURT?

It is most reverently contended before this Hon’ble Apex Court of Findia that the instant Public Interest Litigation is not maintainable before this Hon’ble Court as the interest litigation is filed at the garb of private interest, rather than public interest, that violates the “relaxation of locus standi” principle that is given to public interest litigations. Further, it also submitted that the “impugned provisions” of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 do not violate any fundamental rights; thereby this current petition cannot be engaged by this Hon’ble Supreme Court. 2.WHETHER THE SECTIONS 8(C) & 27 OF THE NDPS ACT, 1985 SUFFER FROM ANY CONSTITUTIONAL INFIRMITIES AND ARE THEREFORE ULTRA VIRES THE CONSTITUTION OF FINDIA? It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that S. 8 (c) of the Act and S. 27 of the Act are intravires the Findian Constitution and do not suffer from any infirmities. This is because the sale, consumption and usage of drugs are directly related to financing of organized crimes and terrorism as a whole. This was the very intent behind the legislation of the Narcotic Drugs and the Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and also the same was the rationale behind adoption of the Single Convention on the usage of Drugs, by the United Nations that laid international pressure to curb the usage of drugs. Since it is a matter of national security, it is submitted with utmost reverence that the usage and consumption of drugs cannot be legalized.

3. WHETHER SECTION 35 OF THE NDPS ACT, 1985 WHICH ATTACHES A PRESUMPTION OF CULPABILITY, IS ULTRA VIRES THE CONSTITUTION OF FINDIA? It is humbly submitted that S. 35 of the narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is not ultra vires the Findian Constitution. It is submitted that the initial burden still lies on the Prosecution to establish a prima facie case, upon which the onus probandi is transferred to the accused to prove that he is innocent. It is submitted that “innocent until proven guilty” still prevails and therefore, this provision does not violate the cardinal rule of criminal jurisprudence. Further, it is also submitted that this classification of drugs alone does

& JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2019.

Page 16 of 42 not violate Art 14 of the Findian Constitution as it a “reasonable classification” based on intelligible differentia, and this classification has a rational nexus to the object of the Act, without which the object of the Act cannot be achieved. Therefore, it is submitted that this provision is not arbitrary.

4. WHETHER THE CONSUMPTION OF DRUGS CAN FALL WITHIN THE PROTECTIVE COVER OF ARTICLE 25? The Respondent submit with utmost venerance that only religious practices that are “essential to the religion” will receive protection under the umbrella of Art 25 of the Findian Constitution. It is contended that the usage of “drugs” does not constitute the essential religious practice of any religion, in fact all religions view the usage of drugs with utmost contempt. Further, it is also submitted that “public order, morality and health” are exceptions to soliciting protection under Art 25 of the Findian Constitution and all the three restrictions apply in the present context, thereby making it impossible for the consumption of drugs to be protected under Art 25 of the Findian Constitution.

& JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2019.

Page 17 of 42

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. Whether the instant Public Interest Litigation is maintainable before this Hon’ble Court? The Petitioner has filed a Public Interest Litigation by invoking Art 32 of the Findian Constitution^2. The Respondent humbly submits that the PIL is not tenable in the eyes of law as there is not an iota of “public interest” [A] in the given case, rather only private interest is involved and no fundamental right has been repugnantly violated [B]. 1.1 A. No Public Interest is involved: (a) Lexically, the expression "PIL" means the legal action initiated in a Court of law for the enforcement of public interest or general interest in which the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.^3 However, this has become a procedure that is widely abused.^4 It has evolved to become "publicity interest litigation^5 " or "private interest litigation^6 " or "politics interest litigation^7 " or the latest trend being "paise income litigation".^8 (b) If not properly regulated and abuse averted it also becomes a tool in unscrupulous hands to release vendetta and wreck vengeance^9. There must be real and genuine public interest involved in the litigation and not merely an adventure of knight errantor poke ones into for a probe^10. Courts of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants by (^2) Page 6, Moot Court Proposition (^3) Janata Dal v. H.S. Choudhary, (1992) (4) SCC 305. (^4) Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State Of Maharashtra & Ors.,(2005) 1 SCC 590. Also in: Kansing Kalusing Thakore & Ors.v. Rabari Maganbhai Vashrambhai, (2006) 9 SCR 196; Rajiv Ranjan Singh Lalan & Anr v. Union of India & Ors.,(2006) 6 SCC 613. (^5) Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India & Others, 1984 SCR (2) 67. (^6) Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State Of Punjab & Ors, (2009) 1 SCC 441 (^7) Common Cause (A Regd. Society) vs Union Of India & Ors, Writ Petition (civil) 580 of 2003 (^8) Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India & Ors.,(2004) 3 SCC 363. (^9) S.P Gupta v. Union of India, AIR (1982) SC 149. (^10) Kazi Lhendup Dorji v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (1994) 3 SCR 201.

& JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2019.

Page 18 of 42 resorting to this extraordinary jurisdiction^11. It is a tool that should not be employed extraneously and should be used carefully with circumspection.^12 (c) The question of when a PIL can be filed is not res integra and guidelines have been laid down time and again by the Apex Court, which are as follows:

• The court should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition. 13
• The court should ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions.^14
• The courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury.^15 (d) The Respondent humbly contends that none of these limbs stand satisfied in the given case. The petition is very frivolous^16 and the Respondent submits that the Petitioner is trying to obstruct justice and public order by filing such a petition under the veil of a “public interest litigation^17 ”. The ill effects of consumption of drugs are well known^18 and curbing the usage of the drugs, thereby preventing violence was the very intent of the legislature while enacting the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 198519. Challenging the main provisions of the Act through a PIL^20 , lacks merits and goes against the very intent of the Legislature in enacting such a legislation, in the Respondent’s considered view. (e) Going verbatim by the definition of a PIL, the Respondent contends that there is no substantial public interest involved in the present case, thereby making this petition untenable in the eyes of law^21. In fact, the Respondent deferentially submits that if the present petition is allowed and the “impugned” provisions that are challenged are struck down^22 ; if this Hon’ble (^11) Holicow Pictures Pvt.Ltd v. Prem Chandra Mishra & Ors.,AIR (2008) SC 913. Also in: Kushum Lata v. Union of India & Ors., AIR (2006) SC 2643. (^12) Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti v. State of U.P & Ors.,AIR (1990) SC 2060. Also in: P.Seshadri v. S.Mangati Gopal Reddy & Ors.,(2011) 5 SCC 484, Central.Elecricity.Supply Utility of Odisha v. Dhobei Sahoo & Ors.,(2013) SCC 1005. (^13) Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd v. Bombay Environmental Action Group & Ors.,AIR (2006) SC 1489. (^14) State of Uttranchal v. Balwanth Singh Chaufal, (2010) 3 SCC 402. (^15) Ibid. Also in: Dr.Surbahmaniam Swamy v. State of Kerala, WP(C).No. 35180 of 2009., Ashok Kumar Pandey v. The State Of West Bengal, (2004) 3 SCC 349. (^16) Neetu v. State of Punjab & Ors., AIR (2007) SC 758. (^17) Ashok Kumar Pandey v. The State Of West Bengal, (2004) 3 SCC 349. (^18) https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/healthy-body/the-effects-of-drugs/ (^19) Preamble of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. (^20) Page 4, Moot Court Proposition. (^21) Krishna Swami v. Union of India, (1992) 4 SCC 605. (^22) S. 8 (c), S. 27 and S. 35 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

& JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2019.

Page 19 of 42 Court decides to rule for the Petitioners in the instant case, there will be more “public harm” and “public injury” than “public good”, which is the very essence of a Public Interest Litigation^23. The Respondent submits that the instant litigation is against public interest itself and if allowed will cause gross miscarriage of justice and thereby stands untenable in the eyes of law. (f) For a PIL to be maintainable the interest of a substantial segment of the population should have been affected and they should not be in a position to approach this Apex Court owing to their down-trodden social and economic conditions, due to which the Petitioner will acquire locus standi to file the PIL.^24 The public interest litigation should not be merely a cloak for attaining private ends of a third party or of the party bringing the petition^25. In the instant case, it is pertinent to note that the Petitioners have already been arrested for the illegal usage of drugs under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985^26 and the trial is taking place. (f) They decided to file this Public Interest Litigation right after their arrest, which ipso facto demonstrates the private interest involved in this case, under the garb of public interest. This clearly is an abuse of process^27 that is being done by the Petitioners and clearly in violation of the principles of when a PIL can be filed. The Respondent humbly submits that this is a “private interest litigation” clothed as a “public interest litigation” which is clearly against the settled principles of law. If the “impugned provisions^28 ” that are being challenged are struck down, the Petitioners will be hugely benefitted as they will be discharged from their liability under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 under which they have been arrested and this clearly shows the “private interest involved” in the instant litigation. (g) Such frivolous petitions bring down the very sanctum and purity attached to the process of filing a PIL that is meant to be allowed by this Court only after extreme circumspection and scrutiny^29 , in the Respondent’s humble submission. So, The Respondent reverently contends that viewed from any angle, this PIL stands untenable in this Hon’ble Apex Court because there is an absence of “substantial public interest” and involves only private interest. (^23) Fertiliser Corporation Kamgar Union (Regd.), Sindri and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors, [1981] 1 SCC 568 (^24) People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India & Others, AIR (1982) SC 1473. Also in: Ranju Gopal Mukherjee & Anr. v. State Of West Bengal & Ors.,W.P 441 of 2018. (^25) Raunaq International ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd., (1999) 1 SCC 492. (^26) Page 6 of the Moot Court Proposition. (^27) Gian Singh v. State Of Punjab & Anr, (2012) 10 SCC 303. (^28) S. 8 (c), S. 27 and S. 35 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. (^29) Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur V. Punjab State Electricity Board. & ors., (2010) 13 SCC 216.

& JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2019.

Page 20 of 42 1.2 No Fundamental Right has been violated: (a) The powers of the Supreme Court of Findia under Art.32 of Findian Constitution is wide and it can be used to reinstate the fundamental rights of individuals when they have been denied.^30 PIL’s can be entertained when the rights of individuals guaranteed by Part III of the Findian Constitution have been grossly violated.^31 (b) The Respondent deferentially submits that there is no fundamental right of the Petitioners that is violated in the present case as the Respondent will be establishing by virtue of the forth coming issues. The Sections that are being challenged in the instant case^32 are constitutionally valid and there is no legal nexus or basis to contend them as being unconstitutional; this will be proved by the Respondents in the forth coming issues. (c) Any writ petition becomes unsustainable in this Hon’ble Court where it has been satisfactorily established that no fundamental right is violated^33. Moreover, there is no element “genuine public harm” or “genuine public injury”^34 that has to be redressed in the present case. In fact, the Respondent fails to see the essence of any “public interest” being present in the instant matter at all. Moreover, as already explained, admission of the present litigation will lead to more public harm than good; the instant litigation if allowed will go against public order, morality and health, which are reasonable restrictions on Fundamental Rights laid down by the Findian Constitution.^35 Hence, by virtue of this fact also, this PIL is not maintainable, in the Respondent’s considered view.

2. Whether The Sections 8(c) & 27 of the NDPS Act, 1985 Suffer From Any Constitutional Infirmities And Are Therefore Ultra Vires The Constitution of Findia? The Respondent submit with utmost reverence before this Hon’ble Court that S. 8 (c) and S. 27 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 are intra vires the Findian (^30) Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar & Ors. v. State Of Maharashtra, AIR (1967) SC 1. (^31) Tilokchand Motichand & Ors. v. H.B. Munshi & Anr., AIR (1979) SC 898. (^32) S. 8 (c), S. 27 and S. 35 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. (^33) The State of Gujarat & Anr., v. Shri Ambica Mills Ltd., AIR (1974) SC 1300. (^34) Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto & Ors.,(2010) 9 SCC 655. (^35) T.M.A .Pai Foundation and Ors. v. State Of Karnataka and Ors, AIR 2003 SC 355.

& JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2019.

Page 21 of 42 Constitution and do not suffer from any Constitutional infirmities as they do not violate any of the Fundamental Rights vested in Part III of the Findian Constitution. 2.1. Art 14 is not breached (a) The Constitution of Findia envisages the Right to Equality.^36 Article 14 has in itself two limbs, “equality before law^37 ” and “equal protection of law^38. The guaranty of the equal protection of the laws means “the protection of equal laws^39 ”. It forbids class legislation, but does not forbid classification which rests upon reasonable grounds of distinction^40. It does not prohibit legislation, which is limited either in the objects to which it is directed or by the territory within which it is to operate.^41 It merely requires that all persons subjected to such legislation shall be treated alike under like circumstances and conditions both in the privileges conferred and in the liabilities imposed.^42 (b) The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner may contend that Art 14 stands violated in the instant classification of drugs, wherein consumption and selling of drugs is made a penal offence by virtue of the “impugned provisions”^43. However, the Respondents most reverently submit that there is a presence of “intelligible differentia^44 ” and “rationale nexus to the object of the Act^45 ” by virtue of this classification. Therefore, this classification of “narcotic drugs” alone will amount to “reasonable classification^46 ”, thereby falling within the scope of Art 14. (c) It is a proven fact that violence increases as a repercussion of people consuming drugs, it in fact increases manifold that it contributes as a factor to terrorism also^47. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crimes has presented a detailed report and analysis as to how the inflow of illicit drugs and its usage contributes to organized crime and terrorism in a country.^48 “We need to integrate our work to build up more effective and efficient networks (^36) Art 14 to 18 of the Findian Constitution. (^37) The State of West Bengal V_._ Anwar All Sarkarhabib Mohamed, [1952] INSC 1 (^38) Chiranjit Lal v_._ Union of India. (1950) S.C.R.869 (^39) Roy Romer, Governor of Colorado. v. Richard G. Evans, 517 U.S. 620. (^40) National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, AIR 2014 SC 1863 (^41) M/S Swastik Gases P.Ltd vs Indian Oil Corp.Ltd, [2013] 7 S.C.R. 581 (^42) Kedar Nath Bajoria And Anr v. The State Of West Bengal , AIR 1954 SC 660 (^43) S. 8 (c) and S. 27 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (^44) Dr.Subramanian Swamy v. Director, Cbi & Anr, WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 21 OF 2004 (^45) Vivian Joseh Ferreira & Anr vs Municipal Corporation, 1972 SCR (2) 257 (^46) State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr vs Nalla Raja Reddy & Ors, 1967 SCR (3) 28 (^47) https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/gashc4228.doc.htm (^48) https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/frontpage/drug-trafficking-and-the-financing-of-terrorism.html

& JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2019.

Page 22 of 42 so that we may defeat these illegitimate networks that perpetuate so much destruction throughout the world” was the conclusion that was propounded and communicated to the world community at the end of this report.^49 It is a well-established fact, worldwide that that the money from the sale of drugs is directed towards financing of terrorism and other sectors in organized crimes.^50 (d) Therefore, it is the humble submission of the Respondents that the decriminalizing and further allowance of consumption and sale of drugs will contribute it to being an issue of national security and national concern. National security and national concern is a said exception for all fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Findian Constitution^51. Therefore, the intent of the Legislation is catogerzing drugs as a separate class is satiated as it becomes a matter of “national security” and therefore, falls under “reasonable classification”, in the humble submission of the Respondents. 2.2. Art 19 (1) (g) is not breached (a) The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985^52 imposes a blanket ban on the sale of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. However, the Respondents submit that this will not amount to being a violation of Art 19 (1) (g) of the Findian Constitution. (b) Art 19 (1) (g) of the Findian Constitution guarantees the freedom to practice any profession, trade or occupation. However, Art 19 (2) of the same Article imposes “reasonable restrictions” on this particular right. The interests of the sovereignty and integrity of Findia^53 , the security of the State^54 , friendly relations with foreign States, public order^55 , decency or morality^56 or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence^57 have been laid down as “reasonable restrictions” that can be levied on the “freedom to practice of any profession or business. (c) As submitted earlier, drugs, its consumption, use and sale becomes a subject matter of national security concern, which is a clear exception to the freedom granted under Art 19 (1) (^49) Ibid (^50) https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-107shrg85660/html/CHRG-107shrg85660.htm (^51) Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel vs. Union of India & Ors. [(1995) 4 SCC 51] (^52) S. 8 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (^53) State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Challa Ramkrishna Reddy & Ors, (2000) 5 SCC 2 (^54) A. K. Roy vs Union Of India And Anr, 1982 SCR (2) 272 (^55) Piyush Kantilal Mehta v. Commissioner Of Police, 1988 SCR Supl. (3)1081 (^56) Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State Of Maharashtra, 1965 SCR (1) 65 (^57) Art 19 (2) of the Findian Constitution

& JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2019.

Page 23 of 42 (g) by Art 19 (2). Therefore, it is most reverently submitted that there can be no violation of Art 19 (1) (g) also in the instant matter, through the impugned provision. 2.3. No Violation of Art 21 (a) Through a landmark verdict, this Hon’ble Court declared that right to privacy is an intrinsic part of Art 21 of the Findian Constitution.^58 In the words of the Hon’ble Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Privacy includes at its core the preservation of personal intimacies, the sanctity of family life, marriage, procreation, the home and sexual orientation. Privacy also connotes a right to be left alone. Privacy safeguards individual autonomy and recognises the ability of the individual to control vital aspects of his or her life. Personal choices governing a way of life are intrinsic to privacy. Privacy protects heterogeneity and recognises the plurality and diversity of our culture. While the legitimate expectation of privacy may vary from the intimate zone to the private zone and from the private to the public arenas, it is important to underscore that privacy is not lost or surrendered merely because the individual is in a public place. Privacy attaches to the person since it is an essential facet of the dignity of the human being.”^59 (b) It is the contention of the Learned Counsel for Petitioners that S. 27 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 violates one’s privacy as what is done within the four walls of one’s house is not a matter of concern for the State.^60 However, as explained earlier, it is contend that a matter of national security is involved cases of drugs and drug dealing, thereby granting the State every right to enact Legislations to curb and prevent the same. Therefore, it is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that viewed from any angle, S. 8 (c) and S. 27 of the Act are intravires the Findian Constitution and should not be read down by this Hon’ble Court.

3. Whether Section 35 of the NDPS Act, 1985, which Attaches A Presumption Of Culpability, Is Ultra Vires the Constitution Of Findia? The Petitioners submit with utmost respect before this Hon’ble Court S. 35 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is constitutionally valid as the Legislature has the competence to enact the same. (A) Further, the “impugned section” does not violate any (^58) Justice K.S. Puttasamy (Retd) V. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 (^59) Ibid (^60) Moot Court Proposition, Page

& JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2019.

Page 24 of 42 fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution (B). Moreover, it is also submitted that there is a presumption of constitutionality of legislation, unless it is proved otherwise by the person attacking it.^61 (B) (a) It is a settled principle of law that the constitutional validity of a provision or an Act, in its entirety can be challenged only on two grounds viz^62. (i) Lack of legislative competence; and (ii) Violation of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution or of any other constitutional provision.^63 (b) Further, in a judicial pronouncement of this Hon’ble Court,^64 this Court has opined that except on the aforementioned two grounds, there is no third ground on the basis of which the law made by the competent legislature can be invalidated and that the ground of invalidation must necessarily fall within the four corners of the afore-mentioned two grounds. So, the Petitioners would like to elucidate on these grounds further to prove that S. 35 is intra vires the Findian Constitution. 3.1. Proper Legislative Competence (a) The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, was enacted by the Parliament in consonance with the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961, which is a United Nations Treaty, to which Findia is a signatory. (b) It is a clear picture that this act was enacted by the parliament and there is no rebuttable substance about it. This Act was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to narcotic drugs to make stringent provisions for the control and regulation of operations relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. It was enacted to implement the provisions of the International Conventions on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances and the matters connected therewith.^65 The Central Government is charged with the duty of taking all such measures as it deems necessary or expedient for preventing and combating the (^61) Ram Krishna Dalmia v. State of Bihar, AIR 1958 SC 53 8 (^62) Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank Ltd v. United Yarn Tex (P) Ltd Appeal (civil) 432 of 2004 (^63) Rajpal Sharma And Others v. State Of U.P.Thru Principal (WRIT - A No. - 5731 of 2013) (^64) State of A. P. &Ors. v. McDowell & Co. &Ors [(1996) 3 SCC 709] (^65) Preamble of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

& JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2019.

Page 25 of 42 abuse of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances and the menace of illicit traffic therein.^66 3.2. Constitutional Validity of S. 35 (a) It is the humble submission of the Petitioners that S. 35 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is intra vires the Findian Constitution as it does not violate Art 21 or Art 14 or any other fundamental right guaranteed by Part III of the Findian Constitution. 3.2.1. Art 21 is not violated (a) Art. 21 of the Findian Constitution guarantees right to life and personal liberty of person, unless through a procedure established by law. The presumption of innocence means that a suspect is supposed innocent when the interrogation begins and will not be convicted unless there is proof to prove his guilt.^67 It is the fundamental principle of Criminal Jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law.^68 (b) Presumption of innocence is also a basic human right as envisaged under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights^69. It, however, cannot per se be equated with the fundamental right and liberty adumbrated in Article 21 of the Constitution of Findia.^70 The constitutionality of a penal provision placing burden of proof on an accused, thus, must be tested on the anvil of the State's responsibility to protect innocent citizens.^71 The court must assess the importance of the right being limited to our society and this must be weighed against the purpose of the limitation. The purpose of the limitation is the reason for the law or conduct which limits the right.^72 (c) It must, however, be borne in mind that the Act was enacted having regard to the mandate contained in International Conventions on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. Only because the burden of proof under certain circumstances is placed on the accused, the same, (^66) Raj Kumar v. UOI AIR 1991 45 (^67) Law Commission, Article 20(3) of the Constitution and the right to Silence,(law Commission No. 180) (^68) Dhanapal & Ors vs State By Public Prosecutor, 1985 (1) MLJ (Crl) 207 (^69) Article 14(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (^70) Noor Aga vs State Of Punjab &Anr, (2008) 16 SCC 417 (^71) Ibid (^72) Dlamini; S v. Dladla and others 1999(7) BCLR 771